Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.HP.435 W Main St.0019.2012.AHPC001 9.2012.AHPC $435 W. MAIN ST 2737 07 3 30 005 054 CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER )-lc C HI I� a� E E3 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBERS PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0019.2012.AHPC 2737 0730005 - 054 435 W MAIN ST AMY SIMON CONCEPTUAL HPC DEVELOPMENT ALAN RICHMAN 08/15/2012 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 09/10/2015 973 7- c51- 5 -3o f �: !Ij ,. File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help Routing Status Fees Fee Summary Main Actions Attachments Routing History Valuation ArchJEng Custom Fields Sub Permits 1 Pad type ahpc Aspen Historic Land Use Permit # 0019.2012.AHPC I Address 435 W MAIN ST Aptf suite City ASPEN State CO Zip 81611 x Permit Information Master permit I Routing queue aslu07 Applied 5�3f?012 Project Status pending Approved y i Description APPLICATION FOR HPC JEWSH RECOURCE CENTER - AMENDMENT TO THE PHASE 2 Issued -- APPROVALS - CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT ClosedjFinal Submitted ALAN RICHMAN 9201125 Clock Running Days 0 Expires 514f2013 I Submitted via �- Owner Last name iJEWSH RESRC CTR CHAR First name 435 W MAIN ST Phone (970) 544-3770 Address ASPEN CO 81611 Applicant 2 Owner is applicant? F� Contractor is applicant? Last name JEWSH RESRC CTR CHAB, I First name Phone (970) 544-3770 1 Cust # 29281 Addre Lender Last name First name Phone ( - Address Displays the permit lender's address AspenGold5 (server) angelas -1 of 1 • 0 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 10, 2012 Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2012, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Skadron. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Skadron, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. 435 WEST MAIN CALL UP Amy Guthrie, community development department, reminded Council they requested the call up of HPC's decision on the Jewish Community Center at 435 W. Main. Part of the original approval was for a social hall; the applicants have amended the application to change that to a parsonage for the Rabbi on site as a better us of the space and for the project. HPC reviewed the amendment and approved the separate structure with some discussion about where this structure should sit on the site. Staff supports this amendment. Councilman Skadron asked about scale and mass and impact on the historic cabins. Ms. Guthrie said the historic cabins are about 300 square feet and the proposed structure is taller and larger; however, the new structure is stand alone and the previous approval was for a continuous building across most of the block. HPC feels this allows more yard and open space and is sympathetic to the historic cabins. HPC's debate is how close the parsonage should be to the historic cabins. Councilman Skadron asked the allowable height. Ms. Guthrie said it is 28' to the 1/3 point on the roof. Alan Richman, representing the applicant, said the Rabbi's house will be used for other things, like meals after services. Richman showed renderings of the Jewish Community Center and the Rabbi's house and the relationship to the historic cabins. Richman showed where the pre-school will be and the open space that would be used as the playground. Moving the parsonage comprises the open space but protects the cabins. HPC's approval was for the parsonage to be moved to the west, closer to the Community Center. Councilman Skadron asked if there is a reduction in square footage from the original approval. Richman noted the original approval in 2006 was 20,000 square feet, which included a full basement, cabins and this proposal is 17,000 square feet and the community center is 12,000 square feet which will only be 85% of the original approval. The spaces and uses are rearranged on site. Ms. Guthrie pointed out there will be more reviews, essential public facility, growth management, to come before Council. Councilman Skadron said he feels the overall site is improved. NEWsrecodftmndation seconded by Councilman Skadron. Mayor Ireland moved to go into executive session at 6:20 PM pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4) (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions and e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators; seconded by Councilman Skadron. Jim True, city attorney, stated this is to discuss litigation on matters he does not want to disclose. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved to come out of executive session at 6:53 PM; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved to adjourn at 6:53 PM; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Directo<f RE: Call-up of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development Review, Special Review, and Setback Variance: 435 W. Main Street, HPC Resolution #20, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: September 10, 2012 COUNCIL REQUEST: On August 271h, City Council voted to call up the HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development Review, Special Review and Setback Variance for a proposed parsonage on the eastern half of the Aspen Jewish Community Center property at 435 W. Main Street. The AJCC site is a designated landmark within the Main Street Historic District. Council is asked to proceed with the call up procedures and take action on one of the options listed below. REVIEW PROCESS: During a public meeting, City Council shall consider the application de novo and may consider the record established by the HPC. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to the HPC. City Council may take the following action: 1. Accept the decision. 2. Remand the application to HPC with direction from City Council for rehearing and reconsideration. 3. Continue the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis or testimony as necessary to conclude the call up review. If Council selects Option #2 and remands the application back to the Board, the rehearing and reconsideration of the application by HPC is final and concludes the call up review. Substantial changes to the application outside of the specific topics listed in the remand to HPC may require a new call up notice to City Council; however the call up review would be limited only to the new changes to the application. In addition to HPC design approval, this project must be reviewed under Growth Management (Essential Public Facilities) and Subdivision. The property owner cannot apply for the additional reviews until the call-up process is concluded. • BACKGROUND: BACKGROUND: The applicant received Council approval in 2004 for a project which included a sanctuary/ preschool/administrative building, and preservation of 6 historic 1940s era tourist cabins to be used as affordable housing and lodging for visitors related to church events and programming. Construction preparation for the sanctuary was initiated in Spring 2012. In May 2012, Community Development received an application to replace a portion of the approved structure with a freestanding parsonage. The applicant determined that being able to have the Rabbi and family live on site and receive the congregation was a higher priority need. On August 15, 2012, the. Historic Preservation Commission Commission (HPC) approved Conceptual Major Development Review, Special Review for Parking and a Setback Variance for the project. Conceptual Major Development addresses the mass, scale and placement of a proposed building, compatibility of the building within the Main Street Historic District and historic landmarks on the site, and provides the applicant with direction for moving forward with their proposal. All parking requirements for this project have been established through the Special Review process because of the Essential Public Facility status of the development. HPC has the authority to consider setback variances on all historic properties. DISCUSSION: The Planning staff memo to HPC recommended continuation of the design review process for the applicant to restudy the width of the parsonage and the distance between the parsonage and the historic landmarks on the site. During the HPC hearing, the applicant provided a revised site plan, along with maps of the neighborhood which demonstrated that the building dimensions are similar to adjacent structures. HPC approved the design by a vote of 4-3. A copy of the HPC Resolution and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. A copy of the approved massing is attached as Exhibit A. HPC was split on the site plan issue, which is the reason for the 4-3 vote. The board otherwise supported the project, with two areas of restudy for Final review; the roof over the dining room and the orientation of the front door of the parsonage. The parsonage proposal is about 700 square feet smaller than the building program that it is replacing. As a free-standing building, it breaks down the scale of the new development in a way that HPC felt is an improvement to the project. HPC agreed to accept one on -site parking space as adequate for the residential use. A front yard setback variance was granted to allow the parsonage to be in line with the sanctuary building along Main Street. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC decision stand, allowing the project to proceed through the review process, which will include a public hearing before Council. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to uphold HPC's decision to grant Conceptual Major Development Review, Special Review and Setback Variance for a proposed parsonage on the eastern half of the Aspen Jewish Community Center property at 435 W. Main Street." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: HPC Resolution 20, Series 2012 Exhibit C: HPC approved minutes RECEPTIIIN#: 591629, 08/24/2012 at 03:45:42 PM, 1 OF 2, R $16.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW AND SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.20, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-100 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur Chabon Architect and Alan Richman Planning Services, has requested Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for Parking and Setback Variance approval for the property located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A -I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, HPC may establish parking requirements for the project based on the Special Review standards of Section 26.430.040.D; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C. La, Variances; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 15, 2012, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards could be met with restudy and recommended that the public hearing be continued; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 15, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 4 to 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Special Review and a Setback Variance for 435 W. Main Street, with the following conditions: 0 1. The approved site plan is represented in Option 13, Exhibit II of the August 15, 2012 meeting record. 2. The roof over the dining room is to be restudied for Final. 3. The front door of the parsonage must face Main Street. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 15th day of August, 2012. Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION nn Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: I Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: S� Kathy Stricktand, Chief Deputy Clerk • 0 �tl , L' I- C-1- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Patrick Segal and Sallie Golden. Jane Hills was absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jamie moved to approve the minutes of August 81" second by Patrick. All in favor motion carried. Ann abstained because she was absent at the meeting. 435 W. Main — Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for Parking, Setback Variances — Public Hearing Public notice — Exhibit I Deborah Quinn said the public notice requirements are complete except for the mailing list and it will be supplemented into the records. Amy said last week HPC discussed architectural changes to the sanctuary building at the west end of the property and those were approved and they are moving through the building permit process. The social hall will not be built but they intend to build a parsonage for the Rabi and his family. This is a major development two step review and it also has to go to P&Z and council. The social hall spanned across 1/4 length of the block with continuous construction. The parsonage has an immediate advantage because of its detached structure. There is a lot to be said having the open space created around it. It is a taller building than the social hall was and the height is being placed next to the historic cabins. Staff has a few issues with the design guidelines: One is the proximity to the historic cabins and can there be any more breathing room and can the parsonage building move a little closer to the sanctuary building. In this immediate block there are some of the biggest Victorian mansions that are left in town. This building will have some context to support its size but the Victorian buildings look to be approximately 35 feet wide and this building has a width of 50 feet. The building is set back but it seems wider than the historic buildings and staff has concerns about that. HPC needs to address parking and there are not regulations; it is case by case. The applicant is proposing one parking space in a garage. The Rabi and his family will be in a live work situation so we feel there is no need to provide more than they have requested. They are ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 asking for a setback variance to keep the parsonage five feet from the front lot line. That is closer to the street than most of the houses in the block so that might not be considered appropriate; however the sanctuary and the historic cabins are only a foot or two off the front property line so there is a reason to continue keeping the construction closer to Main Street. As a point of discussion whether the proposed garage should be integrated with the house or whether there should be some way to accommodate parking with a structure on the alley or uncovered parking. Staff is recommending continuance. Ann said there are five issues: Proximity to the cabins Width of the parsonage Parking Setback Garage Alan Richman, representing the applicant. We will do this in three pieces; introduction of Rabi Mintz•, Arthur Chabon will address the design issues and I will conclude specifically focusing on the design guidelines. Rabi Mintz said for the success of the organization and the services we offer to the community and for the community itself it will have a big impact to have the two buildings side by side. It is not just really a home it is part of the Jewish center that will be next door. It is a great importance to my growing family and for the success of what we do. My wife and I spent a lot of time with Arthur designing this and we made every effort to eliminate any extra space. We made every effort to maximize the space for the community and our family. The size of the parsonage was dictated by the size of my family and capacity of events that we want to hold in the parsonage. It is important for us to move forward in a timely manner and it is important to do this simultaneously with the construction that will happen next door. We hope to leave here tonight with a vote in favor of the parsonage and allowing us to go forward. Leba Mintz said this is an emotional issue because it is our home. We live 1.2 miles from the center and every Saturday we walk to the center and if there are storms sometimes my children don't even go to the services due to inclement weather. It will make a big difference being next door to the 2 0 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 center. We have made this home as simple as possible. I ask you to not drag this on and hopefully it can go forward. Arthur Chabon, architect — Elevations — Exhibit II Arthur said there are three primary issues: One is the overall length of the building parallel to Main Street. Proximity of the parsonage on Third Street blocks the views of the cabins and the issue that the parking should not be brought so far to the center of the lot. Site plan: Arthur said there are two site plans A and B. The basic strategy was to nestle the parsonage in the L that is defined by the cabins on the alley and cabins on Third Street. As required by the guidelines the main entrance is off Main Street and you enter on a porch which runs parallel to Third St. and then you enter the foyer, living room, dining room, kitchen, mud room and garage. On the Main Street entrance there is a smaller gable and the south elevation a pair of gables and at the west a larger gable to relate to the sanctuary itself. There is a gable over the garage, kitchen and mudroom. The gables are all centered exactly between the cabins. When looking through the cabins they create focal points. We deliberately did not copy the slopes of the cabins leaving a more dynamic dialogue between old and new. The parsonage is much smaller on the site than other properties that you see. Arthur went over Victorian houses with different facades dimensions within the vicinity. Our fagade is 27 feet and the overall is 53 feet but the element that brings you to 53 feet is 12 feet back. Cabins: Arthur said the social hall as approved obscured the three cabins completely. In moving the parsonage inward option B we lose the diagonal view of the cabins. The repetition of the cabins and the space and shadows between the cabins in a way subordinate the parsonage. From the Main Street side they are preserved and enhanced. Parking: Arthur said we have to be ten feet away from the adjacent property and the guidelines require the parking to be off the alley. The options are extremely limited and parking has to be accessed between the cabins. We also want to limit the amount of driveway into the property. There is no better proposal 3 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 for the parking than what we have. We feel our scheme is consistent with the general scale of Main Street and keeping the parsonage closer to the cabins further enhances the historic resource. Alan Richman said the parsonage brings many benefits to the project and it serves critical functions for the congregation and it provides a home for the leaders of the congregation and it creates a free standing residential structure that creates more of an open feel on Main Street as compared to the social hall that which stretched all across Main Street. The relationship between the parsonage and the cabins has been addressed by the guidelines. Your guideline 7.12 says a new structure should step down in scale. In terms of the location of the parsonage and staff s comment to move it to the west we think that there are three significant benefits to the location of the parsonage where it is. It opens up the views from Main Street to the cabins along the alley. By keeping the parsonage close to the cabins we create a playground in the middle of the property which is right next to the pre-school and it is big enough to be usable by the pre-school. If you move it over it cuts into the open space. It also breaks the mass along Main Street into distinct building forms because it keeps the parsonage far away enough from the community center that you actually read them as two separate masses. In the staff report one of reasons to move it west is guideline 7.5 which reads respect the historic settlement patterns. It talks about consideration of building setbacks and entry orientation and open space. We have oriented it to Main Street and keeping the building close to the cabins you create the open space in the middle of the site. The question is the setback. The pattern on our block is not like others. We have a 26 foot primary gable and a cross gable that is set back 12 feet from the primary fagade and is . subordinate to the primary fagade. By the nature of the cabins being behind the building the only way we can accommodate the program the congregation needs is to begin to have the subordinate elements. Alan said they are clearly proposing to access the garage from the alley. We can't place the garage on the alley because we have cabins across the alley. In terms of floor area we are way below. The total build out with the six cabins and the two buildings is about 17,000 square feet. We are 3,000 square feet below the public and 10,000 square feet below what is allowed on the property. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Patrick asked if it was thought of to flip the project so the parking would be accessed from Third Street. Visually it would be best to see the cabins coming from the west. Arthur said 7 years ago we did propose relocating the cabins and HPC determined that the cabins should not be moved. Jay inquired about the use of the cabins. Alan said the three along Main Street are deeded as affordable housing. The three along the alley are deed restricted for lodging for guests associated with the community center. Willis asked about the square footage of the parsonage as compared to the social hall. Allen said the parsonage is approximately 700 feet smaller than the social hall. Nora said we all worked hard to keep the program low with the social hall and is there any way to get the parsonage into that program. Rabi Mintz said we tried that and it could work if we got bigger but then you would have less of a view of the cabins. Alan said with rearrangement you could have a one story more spread out building. We went with the vertical building because that is the pattern you see on Main Street. Chair -person, Ann Mullins opened the public comments. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Ann stated the issues: Proximity of the new building to the cabins. Width of the new building Parking The requested 5 foot setback Garage entry Entrance to the new building • r ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Patrick said in flipping the plan and putting the parsonage on the alley you would get a view plane of all the cabins and it would benefit the community and the Rabi. The reason why the cabins are where they are is because of the massing to the west. Amy said the proposal by Patrick would have to be a new public notice. The location and setting of the cabins is an important significance and that is part of why it was not brought forward. Ann and Jay said they would not agree to support moving the cabins. Jamie said she would have to review the past meetings before making any decisions. Willis pointed out that the applicant has not requested the change and it was important that the cabins remain in their original location. Sallie said she would consider it if the applicant requests it. Proximity to the cabins: Jay said typically we don't nestle things toward the historic structure. Jay said he supports option B so that there is more breathing room around the cabins. I have no problem with the overall width. I do have an issue with the roof over the dining room because it creates more mass. I have no issue with the parking or setback variance or the garage. I don't support the front door entry. The chimney creates more mass and a heaviness as it comes to the ground but that can be discussed at final. Jamie said she can support Option B. Along Main Street there aren't a lot of windows and other Victorians have windows that open up to Main Street. The building also seems a little top heavy with the mass of the roof. How are you nodding or stepping down to the cabins in the back of the alley? I also support what Jay said that the front door needs to face Main Street to give it the presence of the entry. I am also OK with the five foot variance. Sallie said she likes breaking the two buildings up and having the little cabins between the spaces. There is more breathing room. The entrance is fine and the garage and variance are OK also. The building does seem a little top heavy. I can support Option A. rol 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Willis said Option A has the best site plan. Site lines enhance the reading of the resources which is what the site plan is about here. The parking and garage are not a issue. I am also fine with the entry and the width of the building has extensively been researched. I am fine with the front door because it is read from both Main Street and 3`d Street. Where the door is located is not critical because it is not likely to be read at all. The entry is clearly marked as a one story element. Nora said she feels the building is too close to the cabins and doesn't honor the cabins enough. This is now a house and not a social hall so I cannot support the setback variance. It has a front door and should also have some front space. The garage is OK. Ann said the entrance needs to be restudied and come off Main Street. The door looks more like a back door rather than a front door (guideline 7.9) I cannot support the setback. Guideline 7.14 talks about stepping the building down to the historic resources. The garage and parking are fine. By moving the residence to the west it reinforces the historic use of the cabins which was a motor court accessed off Main Street. Patrick said he can support Option B. Since it is a residence my recommendation would be to move the chimney around the corner and put windows on the front and take the overhang off. The front door and windows should be on Main Street. Response to comments: Arthur said the front door is clearly articulated off Main Street. Whether it is perpendicular or parallel is not significant. That said it is an easy plan change. The Rabi specifically requested an entrance off the side street. You can't stop in front of the building on Main Street because there is a bus stop there. The reality is that you will enter from the alley and side street. We consciously did not put a lot of glass on Main Street because there are bedroom there. There are a lot of buildings on Main Street that are 12 to 15 feet apart. Alan said they will look at the requirement for the playground so that state standards are met. Willis said you need to look at the site lines. This is not just a house it is a parsonage and a synagogue. It is a parsonage that is attached to a particular 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CAMISSI MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 organization. Submitting the sanctuary and parsonage separately makes it difficult to read wholly and holistically. The reality is that you will enter off Third Street. Nora suggested we continue the meeting to a date certain. MOTION: Patrick made the motion to continue to restudy the setback and restudy of moving the house west closer to the sanctuary. Restudy the front Main Street fagade which includes the chimney, door, windows, and fagade overhang. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #20 for 435 W. Main Option B with restudy of the roof line over the dining room and that the front door faces Main Street. Motion second by Ann. Amended motion: Willis amended the motion to approve Option A, second by Sallie. Vote on amendment only. Patrick, no; Jamie, no, Jay, no; Ann, no; Nora, no; Willis, yes; Sallie, yes. Motion failed 5-2. Vote on entire motion with the conditions in staff memo. Patrick, yes; Jamie, no; Jay, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, no;Willis, yes; Sallie, no. Motion carried 4-3 135 E. Cooper Ave. work session — no minutes Deborah Quinn, assistant city attorney said a work session is not a recorded public meeting and it is basically getting opinions of members of the board on a proposal that you place in front of them. There can be no approvals and the applicant cannot rely on anything that is said by the commission as a whole or by any individual commissioner. There is nothing that can be stated up front that you can rely formally on. Certainly you are trying to get impressions and input and you need to understand that work sessions are not for making final determinations. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 8 • ¢w O u z • J,7,VN,LS HJLTAOJ ZI L n n 0 0 0 0 m c O N m O cu w 00 Q U Q (n O O d0 M O C i O O (n O M U d c U W U a a Q U ua F- S U Q Z O m Q 2 U D S Q • d LL IZ LL 4 Z 4 LL • 11 c O m N w L O V) NO 0 N LO N 7 3 Q F— L) w F- 2 U Q Z 0 m Q 2 U D 2 H Q c M d 0 1� u `� a v v • • LL tDNMM N� U) M 06 M t0 n a 01 n N •.-� M N M II II II II II II m w m¢ d u o m m .22 m a o�� v ^ �—°° D 2 d m o ry lO wN N u o >> i� in Fo- 06 0 c m a IV on O c O N i CL U U Q H U u1 H 2 U Q N O N • • MEMORANDUM C. TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for Parking and a Setback Variance: 435 West Main Street, aka Aspen Jewish Community Center, HPC Resolution #20, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 BACKGROUND: On August 15, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission Commission (HPC) approved Conceptual Major Development Review, Special Review for Parking and a Setback Variance for a project at 435 W. Main Street. Conceptual Major Development address the mass, scale and placement of a proposed building, compatibility of the building within the Main Street Historic District and historic landmarks on the site, and provides the applicant with direction for moving forward with their proposal. The applicant received Council approval in 2004 for a sanctuary, preschool, and administrative building on the west portion of the lot and preservation of 6 historic 1940s era tourist cabins along the alley and Third Street to be used as affordable housing and lodging for visitors related to church events and programming. Construction preparation for the sanctuary was initiated in June 2012. HPC granted Conceptual approval to construct a parsonage on the eastern half of the property. The parsonage replaces earlier approvals for a social hall to supplement the sanctuga space The applicant has determined that being able to have the Rabbi and family live on site and receive the congregation is a higher priority need. The parsonage proposal is about 700 square feet smaller than the social hall that it is replacing. Approval of one on -site parking space for the parsonage was granted. A front vard setback variance was granted to allow the parsonage to be in line with the sanctuary building along Main Street. Planning staff recommended continuation of the design review to restudy the width of the parsonage and the distance between the parsonage and the historic landmarks on the site, and the HPC approved the design by a vote of 4=3. A copy of the HPC Resolution and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. A copy of the approved massing is attached as Exhibit A. PROCEDURE: This call up procedure is new and was part of the AACP Gap Code Amendments approved on February 27, 2012. This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at the August 271h Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff planner, Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 or amp ug thriena ci.aspen.co.us. Pursuant to Section 26.412.040(B), notification of all Conceptual Commercial Design Approvals must be placed on City Council's agenda within 30 days. City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in Section 26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda. For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their August 27, 2012 meeting. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall stand, and the applicant will move forward through the land use review process. This application .• will be subject to future Su Reviews. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: Draft HPC Resolution 20, Series 2012 Exhibit C: Draft HPC minutes from August 15, 2012 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW AND SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 20, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-100 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur Chabon Architect and Alan Richman Planning Services, has requested Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for Parking and Setback Variance approval for the property located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A -I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, HPC may establish parking requirements for the project based on the Special Review standards of Section 26.430.040.D; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C. La, Variances; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 15, 2012, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards could be met with restudy and recommended that the public hearing be continued; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 15, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 4 to 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Special Review and a Setback Variance for 435 W. Main Street, with the following conditions: • 1. The approved site plan is represented in Option B, presented at the meeting. 2. The roof over the dining room is to be restudied for Final. 3. The front door of the parsonage must face Main Street. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the lath day of August, 2012. Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk N HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Patrick Segal and Sallie Golden. Jane Hills was absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jamie moved to approve the minutes of August 81h second by Patrick. All in favor motion carried. Ann abstained because she was absent at the meeting. 435 W. Main — Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for Parking, Setback Variances — Public Hearing Public notice — Exhibit I Deborah Quinn said the public notice requirements are complete except for the mailing list and it will be supplemented into the records. Amy said last week HPC discussed architectural changes to the sanctuary building at the west end of the property and those were approved and they are moving through the building permit process. The social hall will not be built but they intend to build a parsonage for the Rabi and his family. This is a major development two step review and it also has to go to P&Z and council. The social hall spanned across 3/4 length of the block with continuous construction. The parsonage has an immediate advantage because of its detached structure. There is a lot to be said having the open space created around it. It is a taller building than the social hall was and the height is being placed next to the historic cabins. Staff has a few issues with the design guidelines: One is the proximity to the historic cabins and can there be any more breathing room and can the parsonage building move a little closer to the sanctuary building. In this immediate block there are some of the biggest Victorian mansions that are left in town. This building will have some context to support its size but the Victorian buildings look to be approximately 35 feet wide and this building has a width of 50 feet. The building is set back but it seems wider than the historic buildings and staff has concerns about that. HPC needs to address parking and there are not regulations; it is case by case. The applicant is proposing one parking space in a garage. The Rabi and his family will be in a live work situation so we feel there is no need to provide more than they have requested. They are ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 asking for a setback variance to keep the parsonage five feet from the front lot line. That is closer to the street than most of the houses in the block so that might not be considered appropriate; however the sanctuary and the historic cabins are only a foot or two off the front property line so there is a reason to continue keeping the construction closer to Main Street. As a point of discussion whether the proposed garage should be integrated with the house or whether there should be some way to accommodate parking with a structure on the alley or uncovered parking. Staff is recommending continuance. Ann said there are five issues: Proximity to the cabins Width of the parsonage Parking Setback Garage Alan Richman, representing the applicant. We will do this in three pieces; introduction of Rabi Mintz; Arthur Chabon will address the design issues and I will conclude specifically focusing on the design guidelines. Rabi Mintz said for the success of the organization and the services we offer to the community and for the community itself it will have a big impact to have the two buildings side by side. It is not just really a home it is part of the Jewish center that will be next door. It is a great importance to my growing family and for the success of what we do. My wife and I spent a lot of time with Arthur designing this and we made every effort to eliminate any extra space. We made every effort to maximize the space for the community and our family. The size of the parsonage was dictated by the size of my family and capacity of events that we want to hold in the parsonage. It is important for us to move forward in a timely manner and it is important to do this simultaneously with the construction that will happen next door. We hope to leave here tonight with a vote in favor of the parsonage and allowing us to go forward. Leba Mintz said this is an emotional issue because it is our home. We live 1.2 miles from the center and every Saturday we walk to the center and if there are storms sometimes my children don't even go to the services due to inclement weather. It will make a big difference being next door to the 2 ASPEN H• ORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 center. We have made this home as simple as possible. I ask you to not drag this on and hopefully it can go forward. Arthur Chabon, architect — Elevations — Exhibit II Arthur said there are three primary issues: One is the overall length of the building parallel to Main Street. Proximity of the parsonage on Third Street blocks the views of the cabins and the issue that the parking should not be brought so far to the center of the lot. Site plan: Arthur said there are two site plans A and B. The basic strategy was to nestle the parsonage in the L that is defined by the cabins on the alley and cabins on Third Street. As required by the guidelines the main entrance is off Main Street and you enter on a porch which runs parallel to Third St. and then you enter the foyer, living room, dining room, kitchen, mud room and garage. On the Main Street entrance there is a smaller gable and the south elevation a pair of gables and at the west a larger gable to relate to the sanctuary itself. There is a gable over the garage, kitchen and mudroom. The gables are all centered exactly between the cabins. When looking through the cabins they create focal points. We deliberately did not copy the slopes of the cabins leaving a more dynamic dialogue between old and new. The parsonage is much smaller on the site than other properties that you see. Arthur went over Victorians with different facades dimensions within the vicinity. Our fagade is 27 feet and the overall is 53 feet but the element that brings you to 53 feet is 12 feet back. Cabins: Arthur said the social hall as approved obscured the three cabins completely. In moving the parsonage inward option B we lose the diagonal view of the cabins. The repetition of the cabins and the space and shadows between the cabins in a way subordinate the parsonage. From the Main Street side they are preserved and enhanced. Parking: Arthur said we have to be ten feet away from the adjacent property and the guidelines require the parking to be off the alley. The options are extremely limited and parking has to be accessed between the cabins. We also want to limit the amount of driveway into the property. There is no better proposal 91 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 for the parking than what we have. We feel our scheme is consistent with the general scale of Main Street and keeping the parsonage closer to the cabins further enhances the historic resource. Alan Richman said the parsonage brings many benefits to the project and it serves critical functions for the congregation and it provides a home for the leaders of the congregation and it creates a free standing residential structure that creates more of an open feel on Main Street as compared to the social hall that which stretched all across Main Street. The relationship between the parsonage and the cabins has been addressed by the guidelines. Your guideline 7.12 says a new structure should step down in scale. In terms of the location of the parsonage and staff s comment to move it to the west we think that there are three significant benefits to the location of the parsonage where it is. It opens up the views from Main Street to the cabins along the alley. By keeping the parsonage close to the cabins we create a playground in the middle of the property which is right next to the pre-school and it is big enough to be usable by the pre-school. If you move it over it cuts into the open space. It also breaks the mass along Main Street into distinct building forms because it keeps the parsonage far away enough from the community center that you actually read them as two separate masses. In the staff report one of reasons to move it west is guideline 7.5 which reads respect the historic settlement patterns. It talks about consideration of building setbacks and entry orientation and open space. We have oriented it to Main Street and keeping the building close to the cabins you create the open space in the middle of the site. The question is the setback. The pattern on our block is not like others. We have a 26 foot primary gable and a cross gable that is set back 12 feet from the primary fagade and is subordinate to the primary fagade. By the nature of the cabins being behind the building the only way we can accommodate the program the congregation needs is to begin to have the subordinate elements. Alan said they are clearly proposing to access the garage from the alley. We can't place the garage on the alley because we have cabins across the alley. In terms of floor area we are way below. The total build out with the six cabins and the two buildings is about 17,000 square feet. We are 3,000 square feet below the public and 10,000 square feet below what is allowed on the property. 0 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Patrick asked if it was thought of to flip the project so the parking would be accessed from Third Street. Visually it would be best to see the cabins coming from the west. Arthur said 7 years ago we did propose relocating the cabins and HPC determined that the cabins should not be moved. Jay inquired about the use of the cabins. Alan said the three along Main Street are deeded as affordable housing. The three along the alley are deed restricted for lodging for guests associated with the community center. Willis asked about the square footage of the parsonage as compared to the social hall. Allen said the parsonage is approximately 700 feet smaller than the social hall. Nora said we all worked hard to keep the program low with the social hall and is there any way to get the parsonage into that program. Rabi Mintz said we tried that and it could work if we got bigger but then you would have less of a view of the cabins. Alan said with rearrangement you could have a one story more spread out building. We went with the vertical building because that is the pattern you see on Main Street. Chair -person Ann Mullins opened the public comments. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Ann stated the issues: Proximity of the new building to the cabins. Width of the new building Parking The requested 5 foot setback Garage entry Entrance to the new building 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Patrick said in flipping the plan and putting the parsonage on the alley you would get a view plane of all the cabins and it would benefit the community and the Rabi. The reason why the cabins are where they are is because of the massing to the west. Amy said the proposal by Patrick would have to be a new public notice. The location and setting of the cabins is an important significance and that is part of why it was not brought forward. Ann and Jay said they would not agree to support moving the cabins. Jamie said she would have to review the past meetings before making any decisions. Willis pointed out that the applicant has not requested the change and it was important that the cabins remain in their original location. Sallie said she would consider it if the applicant requests it. Proximity to the cabins: Jay said typically we don't nestle things toward the historic structure. Jay said he supports option B so that there is more breathing room around the cabins. I have no problem with the overall width. I do have an issue with the roof over the dining room because it creates more mass. I have no issue with the parking or setback variance or the garage. I don't support the front door entry. The chimney creates more mass and a heaviness as it comes to the ground but that can be discussed at final. Jamie said she can support Option B. Along Main Street there aren't a lot of windows and other Victorians have windows that open up to Main Street. The building also seems a little top heavy with the mass of the roof. How are you nodding or stepping down to the cabins in the back of the alley? I also support what Jay said that the front door needs to face Main Street to give it the presence of the entry. I am also OK with the five foot variance. Sallie said she likes breaking the two buildings up and having the little cabins between the spaces. There is more breathing room. The entrance is fine and the garage and variance are OK also. The building does seem a little top heavy. I can support Option A. .1 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Willis said Option A has the best site plan. Site lines enhance the reading of the resources which is what the site plan is about here. The parking and garage are not a issue. I am also fine with the entry and the width of the building has extensively been researched. I am fine with the front door because it is read from both Main Street and 3`d Street. Where the door is located is not critical because it is not likely to be read at all. The entry is clearly marked as a one story element. Nora said she feels the building is too close to the cabins and doesn't honor the cabins enough. This is now a house and not a social hall so I cannot support the setback variance. It has a front door and should also have some front space. The garage is OK. Ann said the entrance needs to be restudied and come off Main Street. The door looks more like a back door rather than a front door (guideline 7.9) I cannot support the setback. Guideline 7.14 talks about stepping the building down to the historic resources. The garage and parking are fine. By moving the residence to the west it reinforces the historic use of the cabins which was a motor court accessed off Main Street. Patrick said he can support Option B. Since it is a residence my recommendation would be to move the chimney around the corner and put windows on the front and take the overhang off. The front door and windows should be on Main Street. Response to comments: Arthur said the front door is clearly articulated off Main Street. Whether it is perpendicular or parallel is not significant. That said it is an easy plan change. The Rabi specifically requested an entrance off the side street. You can't stop in front of the building on Main Street because there is a bus stop there. The reality is that you will enter from the alley and side street. We consciously did not put a lot of glass on Main Street because there are bedroom there. There are a lot of buildings on Main Street that are 12 to 15 feet apart. Alan said they will look at the requirement for the playground so that state standards are met. Willis said you need to look at the site lines. This is not just a house it is a parsonage and a synagogue. It is. a parsonage that is attached to a particular 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 organization. Submitting the sanctuary and parsonage separately makes it difficult to read wholly and holistically. The reality is that you will enter off Third Street. Nora suggested we continue the meeting to a date certain. MOTION: Patrick made the motion to continue to restudy the setback and restudy of moving the house west closer to the sanctuary. Restudy the front Main Street fagade which includes the chimney, door, windows, and fagade overhang. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #20 for 435 W. Main Option B with restudy of the roof line over the dining room and that the front door faces Main Street. Motion second by Ann. Amended motion: Willis amended the motion to approve Option A, second by Sallie. Vote on amendment only. Patrick, no; Jamie, no, Jay, no; Ann, no; Nora, no; Willis, yes; Sallie, yes. Motion failed 5-2. Vote on entire motion with the conditions in staff memo. Patrick, yes; Jamie, no; Jay, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, no;Willis, yes; Sallie, no. Motion carried 4-3 135 E. Cooper Ave. work session — no minutes Deborah Quinn, assistant city attorney said a work session is not a recorded public meeting and it is basically getting opinions of members of the board on a proposal that you place in front of them. There can be no approvals and the applicant cannot rely on anything that is said by the commission as a whole or by any individual commissioner. There is nothing that can be stated up front that you can rely formally on. Certainly you are trying to get impressions and input and you need to understand that work sessions are not for making final determinations. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk E MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 435 W. Main Street, Aspen Jewish Community Center- Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for Parking, Setback Variance- Public Hearing DATE: August 15, 2012 SUMMARY: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen (AJCC) requests Conceptual Major Development, Parking and Setback review for a proposed parsonage on the eastern half of their property at 435 W. Main Street. The AJCC site is a designated landmark within the Main Street Historic District. The parsonage replaces earlier approvals for a social hall that was intended to supplement the special function space available in the sanctuary structure. AJCC has determined that being able to have the Rabbi and family live on site and receive the congregation is a higher priority need. The complex has been in the land use review process since 2004 and includes a sanctuary, preschool, and administrative building on the west portion of the lot and preservation of 6 historic 1940s era tourist cabins along the alley and Third Street, to be used as affordable housing and lodging for visitors related to church events and programming. Construction preparation for the sanctuary was initiated in June 2012. The new parsonage proposal must proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for Essential Public Facility Review/GMQS Exemption and Subdivision before returning for HPC Final, but would ideally be permitted while sanctuary building is still underway. Staff finds that design restudy is needed to meet the design review guidelines. Continuation is recommended. APPLICANT: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur Chabon, architect and Alan Richman Planning Services. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-100. ADDRESS: 435 W. Main Street, Lots A -I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The relevant design guidelines include the HPC guidelines for new development on a landmark lot, and the Main Street District guidelines found in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic Districts design document. They are attached as "Exhibit A." Below is the Main Street elevation of the social hall concept originally approved to be built in the foreground of the historic cabins on this site. 25 ------==----- ------ ------------------- SOCIAL HALL Part of the reason for the lengthy review process on this project has been the challenges of relating the substantial program and scale of the desired buildings on this site with the very small cabins, which are roughly half the size of even a miner's cottage. The cabins have always been arranged in an L formation along the Third Street and the alley, with car access that used to come 2 0 . come directly from Main Street to the cabin doors as seen at right. In the 1990s, HPC approved a new phase of cabins which were of a very similar scale, but which sat in front of the historic resources and eliminated the Main Street vehicular access for safety reasons. In approving the social hall last year, the board seemed to appreciate the fact that development at this most sensitive end of the property was one story and still allowed views of some of the cabins. That said, in fact, the social hall and sanctuary, in combination, stretched across approximately 200' of the 270' block length, with Main Street facing courtyards providing some relief. Staff appreciates the new concept of the parsonage as a free standing, residential scaled structure that provides more open space on the site. HPC has been provided with a Conceptual design for a home that will also accommodate special events with the congregation. A one car garage is accessed by a drive through between two of the cabins. The building has a steeply pitched, cross gable roof and a prominent porch, all of which tie it to the Victorian era mansions located one block to the east. These nearby structures are some of the largest Queen Ann style buildings that survive in Aspen. The parsonage proposal is approximately 700 square feet smaller than the social hall FAR. The maximum overall FAR for the property is about 20,000 square feet, and HPC is reviewing a development of approximately 17,000 square feet. There are a few aspects of the design that staff finds require restudy. First, the parsonage is approximately 50' wide on the north and south facades. Most of the adjacent large houses appear to be no more than 30-35' wide. We recommend that the applicant study these proportions in order to better meet guidelines such as 7.5, 7.10, 7.14 and 11.3. A restudy of the width of the building would also address our second concern, which is the proximity to the historic cabins along Third, and the extent to which the parsonage blocks views of the cabins along the alley. We recommend consideration of shifting the parsonage house more towards the west than is proposed, to address guideline 7.5. SPECIAL REVIEW, PARKING There is no set requirement for the number of parking spaces required to serve the parsonage. To date, all parking for the project has been set by Special Review, considering the specifics of the situation. Special review standards. Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3 If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.13, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application. A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on -street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Response: In depth evaluation of the parking needs of the sanctuary functions of this project, including the deleted social hall, has already been completed, and resulted in a nine required on -site spaces. One more parking space is proposed for the new parsonage, contained within a garage attached to the house. In some of Aspen's residential neighborhoods, a single family home requires two on -site spaces. Within the downtown core, residential uses do not have to provide any on -site parking due to nearby parking infrastructure, bus service and walkability. Given the live/work situation that is involved here, staff finds that one parking space is adequate. We recommend some study of alternatives that would not bring the parking into the center of the property. Guideline 7.11 suggests that secondary structures, such as a garage, should be located along the alley. SETBACK VARIANCES The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of' the Municipal Code are as follows: In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. C! Staff Response: The parsonage is proposed to be set 5' from the front property line, in alignment with the sanctuary. The required front yard setback is 10'. The frontmost historic cabin sits 1-2' feet back from the front property line, so there is a pattern of close proximity to Main Street. Most of the surrounding historic homes, however have a more gracious front yard. Staff finds the variance is generally appropriate in order to be distanced from the historic cabins and to allow the new house to be longer in the north/south axis than it is wide. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the review for restudy of the width and location of the proposed parsonage. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue 435 W. Main, Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for Parking, and Setback Variance to October 24, 2012. Exhibits: A. Relevant guidelines B. Application • "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 435 W. Main Street, Conceptual Major Development" 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of anew building to the street. ❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. ❑ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. ❑ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. ❑ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. ❑ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. ❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ❑ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. ❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. o Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. ❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A -frames. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ❑ These include windows, doors and porches. ❑ Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. ❑ Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. ❑ If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. C, 0 • City of Aspen Design Objectives 1. Preserve the integrity of the historic district. The primary period of significance for Main Street is the mining era in Aspen. The primary objective is to preserve this character while accommodating compatible development and change. Individual buildings from later periods may also be of historic significance. They should be preserved and their context should be respected in future development. 2. Maintain traditional building widths. People constructed many buildings that were similar in width to nearby structures, and generally in proportion to the lot size. This helped to establish a relatively uniform scale for the neighborhood and, when these buildings were evenly spaced along a block, a sense of rhythm resulted. In such a case, the perceived width of a new building should appear similar in size to that of historic buildings in the area in order to help maintain this sense of visual continuity. 3. Maintain the range of traditional building and roof forms. A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity along Main Street. In order to maintain this feature, a new building should have basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Overall facade proportions also should be in harmony with the context. 4. Maintain the character of traditional materials. The predominant use of wood siding is another important feature in the district. Building materials of new structures and additions to existing structures should contribute to this visual continuity of the neighborhood by reflecting the scale and texture of traditional materials. While new materials may be considered, they should appear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity. Main Street Historic District Mature cottonwood trees in the right-of-way provide a shaded environment and sense of rhythm along the street. 5. Incorporate architectural details that are in character with the district. Entries are clearly defined on most structures in the neighborhood. Porches, porticos and stoops are elements that typically define entries. These features add a one-story element to the fronts of buildings, helping to establish a uniform sense of human scale along the block. They are essential elements of the neighborhood that should be maintained. Other architectural details also contribute to the sense of character of the street, adding visual interest for pedestrians. Their continued use is strongly encouraged. 6. Maintain the characteristics of traditional windows and doors. The similarity of window and door size and location contributes to a sense of visual continuity along the street. In order to maintain this sense of visual continuity, a new building should maintain the basic window and door proportions and placement patterns seen traditionally in the district. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District d°� 1 page 229 Design Objectives and Guidelines ^d 0 i Main Street Historic District City of Aspen Conceptual Review Design Guidelines hhe follmvin.g deign f e.iid dine shall apply at the conceptual rep iev, ,ta,;e. The network of streets, alleys and existing pedestrian passageways enhances access in the Main Street Historic District. The character of the alley can be enhanced by building form. Maintain the traditional character and function of an alley. Street & Alley Systems The street pattern is essential "infrastructure" to the creation and maintenance of the character of Aspen. The circulation pattern provided by the network of streets and alleys should be retained for maximum public access. It should not be enclosed by gating and it should not be spanned by development above. Wherever possible, pedestrian access should be enhanced. The creation of additional public walkways to rear alleys and other public spaces enhances the attraction, permeability, intricacy and interest of the city center. Street Grid 7.1 Preserve the historic district's street plan. • Three distinct street grids intersect in the neighborhood (Main Street, side streets and alleys). This layout should be retained. Alleys 7.2 Maintain the traditional character and function of an alley where it exists. • Locate buildings and fences along the alley's edge to maintain its narrow width. • Paving alleys is strongly discouraged. • Closing an alley is inappropriate. page 130 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines • • City of Aspen Parking The character of the Main Street District is one which is most appreciated on foot. The human - scale, walkable concentration of streets and spaces lies at the heart of the attraction of the area. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized. 7.3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the street. Visual impacts shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways: • Parking shall be placed underground or in a structure wherever possible. • Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the property, behind the structure. • Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and landscaped to soften parking areas. 7.4 Underground parking access shall not have a negative impact on the character of the street. Underground parking access shall be: • Located on a secondary street where feasible - except where alley access is feasible. • Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building fagade. • Integrated into the building design. Main Street Historic District Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear of property, behind the structure. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District W page 131 Design Objectives and Guidelines • • Main Street Historic District A variety of building setbacks exist along Main Street. Inappropriate: Although this building has placed a fence in the typical setback range, the building is setback too far from the street. Appropriate: When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block. City of Aspen Building Placement Setbacks & Building Alignment The pattern of principal and side street, as well as the alley, should be retained and enhanced. The predominant pattern and scale of development is varied but well defined. Building alignment varies along the street, but in larger buildings perpendicular ridge lines and street facing gables predominate. The slightly varying setbacks create an orchestrated visual vitality which, along with building scale, should be respected in further development. Mature trees also should be safeguarded. Corner sites present the scale of the building in a very public three dimensions. Particular attention to design and building configuration to accord with this scale and presence will be required. Site design features • Residential buildings have relatively uniform front -setbacks. Although front setbacks are not identical, the minimal variation creates a sense of rhythm along the street. • Larger homes along Main Street generally have larger front -setbacks, while the smaller miner cottages have smaller front - setbacks. • Larger residential units are generally located on multiple lots, and centered within the lots. • Side -setbacks of larger homes are often half - or full lot width. • Smaller homes have minimal side -setbacks and fill most of the lot width. • Despite the variety in setback patterns between house sizes, houses generally are oriented towards the street, with their primary entrance facing the street. • Secondary structures are set towards the rear and sides of the lots along the alleys. • Commercial units were historically located on corner lots and fronted the sidewalk. More recent commercial buildings are sited similarly to residential patterns. page 132 � Commercial, Lodging and Historic District yse Design Objectives and Guidelines C� • City of Aspen 7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns. • Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space. 7.6 Where a sidewalk exists, maintain its historic material and position. • Historically, sidewalks were detached from the curb, and separated by a planting strip. 7.7 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street. • Provide auto access along an alley wherever possible. • New curb cuts are not permitted. • Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut. Site 7.8 Provide a walk to the primary building entry, perpendicular from the public sidewalk. Orientation 7.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. • The building should be oriented parallel to the lotlines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. • A structure, or each street -facing unit in the case of a multifamily structure, should have a primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street. Main Street Historic District 7/ Provide a walk to the primary building entry, perpendicular from the public sidewalk. Orient a new building in a manner that is consistent with the orientation of traditional development along Main Street. Respect historic settlement patterns in a new building. Commercial, Lodging and Historic Districts page 133 Design Objectives and Guidelines ^d • • Main Street Historic District Victorian residences remain a beloved historical style throughout Aspen. Similarity ofbuildingforms also contribute to the visual continuity along Main Street. Building and roof form on new structures should be similar in character to their historic neighbors. r f. City of Aspen Building Alignment 7.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block historically during the mining era. These include front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks. Setbacks vary in some areas, but generally fall within an established range. A greater variety in setbacks is inappropriate in this context. Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block. Secondary Structures 7.11 Locate a new secondary structure in a manner that is similar to those seen historically in the district. • Secondary structures should be placed along the alley edge. Building Form A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity along Main Street. In order to maintain this feature, a new building should have basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Overall facade proportions also should be in harmony with the context. The character of the roof is a major feature of historic buildings in the Main Street District. The similar roof forms contribute to the sense of visual continuity when repeated along the street. In each case, the roof pitch, its materials, size and orientation are all important to the overall character of the building.. New construction should not break from this continuity. New structures and their roofs should be similar in character to their historic neighbors. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines • City of Aspen Building Height, Mass & Scale The well-defined pattern of building height, mass and scale on Main Street should be preserved. Here the building spacing, scale, height and roof profiles create a design discipline for the form of future development. Larger buildings within the area should step down in scale next to residential units. 7.12 Anew structure should step down in scale where it abuts a single story historic structure. 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. A minimum second story floor to cieling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is respectful to historic buildings. Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, maybe added for one or more of the following reasons: - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. Building Scale 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era. • Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. Main Street Historic District New infill should maintain the mass and scale of existing development. One story porches and variation in massing reflect the building tradition of the area. Subdivide the mass of larger structures into smaller "modules" to reflect the traditional scale of development on Main Street. 7.15 On larger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. • Other subordinate modules maybe attached to the primary building form. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District W page 135 Design Objectives and Guidelines 9 4P EXHIBIT`, ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT 3 West Main Street Irvington NY 10533 212 216 9268 Tel 914 478 1597 Fax L�J Aspen Jewish Community Center 435 W Main Street, Aspen CO August 15, 2012 ^,w■: r , v%`� r• � . �, •. � > 'ice S q• .� i ��i �v�►- ��Y1 - •,%, GS /. 4 - .+�- 1 _ ^' �- (yam-,• '!' �' •. .., �w � ..,. � M : •. . �•_ - 7 �Wi1M�f A^ \. ,ram �� _"~ � •. � ���� ,� ' ' I. +�'� �r> :, ' � A ` a \� y h lw ' T� N�/11+�♦ w` �- ; ww.a � `W yam! �r'i�r�r• •! .� •. .� �,� ... ` 1 Aw AOOW •';ii . t 'y�w..w _ wY.aar�i ��trdw►sr> a r�•(�`�(~ �'• • �1� • ! • •,, • - � � .•• �!i_.1YLt � _adl! "- irelM. sA w i �IYtirr��•ajl/�> cur" ��i, \. • !Id/YIr►/i> ♦.ar/%ItAI//iurJ/IN � C -/d /er ✓ /!/V ./ /r1 ✓ f&/I AWIL _maw 1 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT Looking from North-west Main street Looking Alley & S3rd street corner 3 West Main Street Irvington NY 10533 212 216 9268 Tel 914 478 1597 Fax Looking from South-west S3th street Looking from Alley Aspen Jewish Community Center 435 W Main Street, Aspen CO August 15, 2012 0 • SETBACK 55.7' 33.8' 32.7'I vi ■ N �1 •9 Z6w 3 I^ •• •• e0ee •• • • • t; ••• ••• - N N 7---� - --- ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT 3 West Main Street Irvington NY 10533 212 216 9268 Tel 914 478 1597 Fax 7 = or W MAIN ST • s 1 0�--5 • 3.6'___ SIW�. �•arti Aspen Jewish Community Center 435 W Main Street, Aspen CO 0- F��Z a 1 August 15, 2012 • ,ram .19 V; _.9'Z6 11-7 t; Ila men W4 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT tA 26.84' 53.61' 3 West Main Street Irvington NY 10533 212 216 9268 Tel 914 478 1597 Fax r ' gin 7 2 -3- 00000 0 Room 0 11 it ••••••••••••••••••• W MAIN Si OP a �•arti .41 Aspen Jewish Community Center 435 W Main Street, Aspen CO I August 15, 2012 0 . s a z 70 i spa W MAIN ST Jim& Iblign t; 0- Mest a��tJ Y u 33.4' ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT 3 West Main Street Irvington NY 10533 212 216 9268 Tel 914 478 1597 Fax N t; 4" 0 7 417 C ;ftr z * z • • ••. �•'i••••• G !nbd= r . -9- 7 6 it i's IL WN Aspen Jewish Community Center 435 W Main Street, Aspen CO F�a.a■ N August 15, 2012 SETBACK 32.5' ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT 3 West Main Street Irvington NY 10533 212 216 9268 Tel 914 478 1597 Fax z opt W MAIN ST is uvr% ♦ 7.2'- ♦ 27.5' 3�� Aspen Jewish Community Center 435 W Main Street, Aspen CO PGJ��olos August 15, 2012 E- 0 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado S i t e p l a n S c a I e 3/32" = 1'•0" August 15, 2012 O .• Y 20' ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado S i t e p l a n O p t i o n B S c a I e 3/32" = 1'-0" August 15, 2012 O {' i3 ��r ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado M a i n S t r e e t E l e v a t i o n O p t i o n A Scale 1/16'=1'-0' August 15, 2012 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Alley Elevation Option B August 15, 2012 Aspen , Colorado Scale 1/8"=1'-0' ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT I I I I I I -c. STA�E7 DG-IR Jb I4 (.C_L�MN AN.G AJCC Parsonage Aspen . Colorado N o r t h E l e v a t i o n Scale 1/8"=1'-0" 'RAT-LER- 5TGAE VENEER FRG- 5E-LER STOKE OF EL _ZBEL. CO August 15, 2012 N o r t h E l e v a t i o n E a s t E l e v a t i o n ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado �e�iv�Av� y/��, -o-e• V S[LOND FIN. FL. �25� FIN. FL. South Elevation W e s t E l e v a t i o n N o r t h S o u t h, E a s t & W e s t E l e v a t i o n s Scale 1 /8" = 1'.0" August 15, 2012 s 10 0 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado B a s e m e n t F l o o r P l a n S c a I e 1/4" = 1'-0" August 15, 2012 First Floor Area = 1,668. SY Second Floor Area = 1,763.3 SY Total Habitable Area = 3,431.3 SY Garage = 297.3 SY Gross area = 3,728.6 SY Covered space = 293 SY ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT 52-11 5/5, 18'_10 1/4• ---------- — — ——._...L.,.. I 1 , zT .._ .��� i,...r O t r- r � I FOYER I I _-�- 54 W-- -- rO0i0 .: is I' 224 sF s� 1 � 2eo sF I Y� I � ® ur I i 4�11W 1 1 6'-1 ", 15'I3" AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado 52'-9 3/9• F i r s t F l o o r p l a n S c a l e 1/4" = 1'-0" s 0 N August 15, 2012 Second Floor Area = 1,763.3 S.F ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado S e c o n d F I o o r S c a I e 1 /4" = 1'-0" p I a n August 15, 2012 o z a ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT A J C C Parsonage Aspen , Colorado A I I e y E l e v a t i o n Scale 1/8"=1'-0" August 15, 2012 :e 10 • �! ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado M a i n S t r e e t E l e v a t i o n O p t i o n B Scale 1/16"=1'-0" August 15, 2012 • • EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1 � A35 ,..*,1k �^^��^ S , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: LS , 200 17, STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, 7PVLPS-"_ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ✓/ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the z3 day of T0� , 201i IZ, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 23°`lday of j uly , 20012 , by Mom Vichmav► WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 07 25 2015 U Notary Public ,YY CaaniuW Expires 01/15/2015 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 L_ J • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 435 W. MAIN STREET, ASPEN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER- MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND SPECIAL REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 15, 2012, at a special meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, 104 Robinson Road, Aspen, CO, 81611, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Arthur Chabon Architects. The subject property is legally described as 435 W. Main Street, Lots A -I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, and the request is for Major Development (Conceptual) review of a proposed parsonage to be constructed on the eastern portion of the site. Special Review for On -Site Parking and Front Yard Setback are also requested. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2758, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Ann Mullins, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on July 26, 2012 City of Aspen Account W u 0 ON Q CL a. •t� �.� O CD— Q. Qi Ccz I E cn �' N U CI (z C O Cr o. v =' cn a cz a� 0 O c1? (7 O ° Q ) co � N © U o N 0 L) � O W �- U- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:. L L,c� ki - �iu,(nn �r(,,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1 S_ E::M/JM 20121- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, e, -� Xh E (name, please print) being or repres nting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.3.04.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) 0 Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. �r Signature The fore oing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this Z7day of , 2017,-by /�Y •PV� LINDA M. MANNING 1%Z0F ccu •u-�F WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL commission expires:-2�—�1`t otary My Com *Oon Expires 03312014 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: * COPY OF THE PUBLICATION * PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) * LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 435 W. MAIN STREET, ASPEN JEWISH COMUNITY CENTER- MAJOR DEVELOP- MENTN(CONCEPTUAL) AND SPECIAL REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday. August 15. 2012. at a special meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers. City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to a consider n application submitted by Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, 104 Robinson Road. Aspen, CO. 81611, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Arthur Chabon Architects. The subject property is le ally described as 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-1, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, and the request is for Major Development (Conceptual) review of a proposed parsonage to be constructed on the eastern portion of the site. Special Review for On -Site Parking and Front Yard Setback are also requested. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Developp- ment Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2758, am 9_QV asoen co.us. s/Ann ullins ho—Ir Aspen Historic reservation Commission Publish in the Aspen Times Daily on July 27, 2012. & Aspen Times Weekly on August 2. 2012. J81865791 320 W MAIN LLC 331 W BLEEKER LLC 501 WEST MAIN LLC 2020 CALAMOS CT 8901 MEMORIAL DR 532 E HOPKINS AVE NAPERVILLE, IL 60563 HOUSTON, TX 77024 ASPEN, CO 81611-1818 ALLAN ANDREW S 154 MARION ST DENVER. CO 80218 ASPEN FSP ABR LLC 11921 FREEDOM DR #950 RESTON. VA 20190 ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC 617 E COOPER AVE ASPEN. CO 81611 BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE & DELANEY LLC 164 LITTLE PARK RD GRAND JUNCTION. CO 81503 BRIEN ALICE 110 NEALE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CARINTHIA CORP 45 E LUPINE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC 795 LAKEVIEW DR MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 CLICK JANE 333 W MAIN ST#2A ASPEN. CO 81611 CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ PO BOX 3670 ASPEN, CO 81612 ALPINE BANK ASPEN ATTN ERIN WIENCEK PO BOX 10000 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION A COLO NON PROFIT CORPORATION 311 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC 137 WESTVIEW DR ASPEN. CO 81611 ASPEN MESA STORE LLC C/O ASPEN BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 8238 ASPEN, CO 81612 BAILEY RYAN TANNER MCKENZIE TRST BLOCKER LAURA G 50% PO BOX 9213 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP ASPEN, CO 81612 303 E 17TH AVE #1100 DENVER, CO 80203 BRAFMAN STUART & LOTTA BEA TRST 5630 WISCONSIN AVE #401 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 BROOKS NORMAN A & LESLEE S 16311 VENTURA BLVD #690 ENCINO, CA 91436 CARTER RICHARD P PO BOX 2932 TELLURIDE, CO 81435 CITY OF ASPEN ATTN FINANCE DEPT 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN. CO 81611 COCHENER CAROLINE A TRUST NUMBER TWO 7309 E 21 ST ST #120 WICHITA, KS 67206 - CORTALE ITA 205 S MILL ST #112 ASPEN, CO 81611 rusom oQ _ �NO3 BRIDGE WILLIAM 367 CAMINO SAN CLEMENTE SAN CLEMENTE, CA 926723705 BROWDE DAVID A 604 QUAKER RD CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514 CHAMBERS PETE PO BOX 220 CABIN JOHN, MD 20818 CLEANER EXPRESS 435 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA PO BOX 1927 CARSON CITY, NV 89702 CRETE ASSOCIATES LP 1630 LOCUST ST #200 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 CRETE ASSOCIATES LP CROWLEY SUE MITCHELL REV TRUST DAHL W ROBERT & LESLIE A PO BOX 1524 409 S GREENWOOD AVE 83 PECKSLAND RD BRYN MAWR, PA 19010 COLUMBIA, MO 65203 GREENWICH, CT 06831 DESTINATION RESORT MGMT INC DILLON RAY IV EMERICK SHELLEY W PO BOX B2 PO BOX 10543 2449 5TH ST SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81612 BOULDER, CO 80304 FARR CHARLOTTE FAT CITY HOLDINGS LLC FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA 306 MCCORMICK AVE 402 MIDLAND PARK PL 412 MARINER DR CAPITOLA, CA 95010 ASPEN, CO 81611 JUPITER, FL 33477 FISERV ISS & CO FRANKEL KATHY TRUST FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC FBO ROBERTA N LOWENSTEIN PO BOX 33 730 E DURANT PO BOX 173859 UNION PIER, MI 49129 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80217-3859 GANT CONDO ASSC GARMISCH LODGING LLC GILDENHORN MICHAEL S 50% 610 S WESTEND ST 110 W MAIN ST 5008 BALTON RD ASPEN, CO 816112142 ASPEN, CO 81611 BETHESDA, MD 20816 GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J GOLDMAN DIANNE L GUNNING JANINE L 430 W HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 518 PO BOX 11705 ASPEN, CO 81611 FAIRFIELD, CT 06824 ASPEN, CO 81612 GUNNING RALPH H & H PROPERTIES LLLP HAVENS THERESA A PO BOX 11912 807 W MORSE BLVD STE 101 PO BOX 1890 ASPEN, CO 81612 WINTER PARK, FL 32789-3725 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 HAYMAN JULES ALAN HOWELL DANIEL B & MARY H HUCKABEE CHRISTOPHER M 9238 POTOMAC SCHOOL DR 3701 PALMA CEIA CT 4521 S HULEN 3220 POTOMAC, MD 20854 TAMPA, FL 33629 FORT WORTH, TX 76109 HUDGENS ROBYN HY-MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION INC JACOBY FAMILY LP 401 W BLEEKER ST 111 C AABC 1402 DUVAL DR ASPEN, CO 816111225 ASPEN, CO 81611 GODFREY, IL 62035 JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST KARP MICHAEL KASPAR THERESA D 2018 PHALAROPE 1630 LOCUST ST #200 PO BOX 1637 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 ASPEN, CO 81612 0 • KENDIG ROBERT & SUE KIRVIDA KATHY L REV TRUST LESTER JAMES PO BOX 4649 PO BOX 518 375 S EBD AVE #35C ASPEN, CO 81612 LINDSTROM, MN 55045 NEW YORK, NY 102801086 LORENTZEN AMY L MACDONALD BETTE S TRUST MARTEN RANDOLPH 409 PARK CIRCLE #3 15 BLACKMER RD 129 MARTEN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 MONDOVI, WI 54755 MCCARTY DANIEL L MCDONALD FAMILY TRUST MITTEL EUROPA PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 4051 314 W MAIN ST PO BOX 3678 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MOLLER DIANE T MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC NAVIAS CRAIG & ESTHER TRUST 1710 MIRA VISTA AVE PO BOX 5109 PO BOX 4390 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93103 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEWTON BARBARA NORTH AND SOUTH ASPEN LLC NORTHWAY LLC PO BOX 9410 200 S ASPEN ST 106 S MILL ST #202 ASPEN. CO 81612 ASPEN. CO 81611 ASPEN. CO 81611 PERRY EMILY V PRICE DOUGLAS QUINN CHRISTINE 700 12TH AVE S UNIT 807 PO BOX 220 333 W BLEEKER ST NASHVILLE, TN 372033372 CABIN JOHN, MD 20818 ASPEN, CO 81611 RAINBOW CONNECTION PROPERTIES RICKEL DAVID RISCOR INC LLC 275 GOLDENROD DR 2651 N HARWOOD ST #580 4475 NORTH OCEAN BLVD #43A LANDSDALE, PA 19446 DALLAS, TX 75201-1576 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 ROSENTHAL DIANNE SAND CANYON CORP SCHALL FAMILY TRUST 8/31/1998 PO BOX 10043 501 W MAIN ST 3841 HAYVENHURST DR ASPEN, CO 81612-7311 ASPEN, CO 81611 ENCINO, CA 91436 SCHEFF JONATHAN & BUTTERWICK SCOTT MARY HUGH KIMBERLY RUSSELL SCOTT III & CO LLC S 5 RIVERUGGS DAVID C & PHYLLIS R 6450 AVENIDA CRESTA 5420 S QUEBEC ST #200 ME PHIS, N 38 0 SAN DIEGO, CA 92037 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 MEMPHIS, TN 38103 SEAL MARK SHEEHAN WILLIAM J SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC PO BOX 9213 SHEEHAN NANCY E C/O JENNIFER SHERWIN ASPEN, CO 81612 10 GOLF VIEW LN 1714 VISTA ST FRANKFORT, IL 60423 DURHAM, NC 27701 0 SILVERSTEIN PHILIP SLTM LLC SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G SILVERSTEIN ROSALYN 106 S MILL ST #202 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75205 BRONX, NY 10463 SNYDER GARY STASPEN LLP STUART DANIEL S & TAMARA B 8324 BROODSIDE RD 1180 PEACHTREE ST NE PO BOX 3274 ELKINS PARK, PA 19027 ATLANTA, GA 303093521 ASPEN, CO 81612 TAD PROPERTIES LTD LIABILITY CO TEMPKINS HARRY & VIVIAN TOLER MELANIE S TRUST PO BOX 9978 605 LINCOLN RD #301 6400 S CLIPPINGER DR ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 CINCINNATI, OH 45243 TOMS CONDO LLC TORNARE RENE & SYLVIA TUCKER LUCY LEA C/O BRANDT FEIGENBAUM PC 308 W HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 1480 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 TWIN COASTS LTD TYCHER MARSHALL B & SALLY K ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 433 PLAZA REAL #275 233 CANOE BROOK RD 600 E HOPKINS #304 BOCA RATON, FL 33432 SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078 ASPEN, CO 81611 VERNER DANIEL A & MERYLE WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC WARBLE ERIC 2577 NW 59TH ST C/O BILL POSS 0124 SPRING PL BOCA RATON, FL 33496 605 E MAIN ST EDWARDS, CO 81632 ASPEN. CO 81611 WENDT ROBERT E II WERLIN LAURA B TRUST WINER CAROL G 50% 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE 2279 PINE ST 6740 SELKIRK DR PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 BETHESDA, MD 20817 YOUNG PAUL III FAMILY TRUST 413 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 816111603 REDFIVED MAY 0 �� 2012 LAND USE APPLICATION CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEWT Name: �,w. S �3 ay.n c� �- C.�„q �k-q 9P Location: �3 S Wv� � �^ S�c, ��� -&t6 it (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) aI 3 5 \ 1 y-�r N\ ao REPRESENTATIVE: Name: �k \pc, Address: Q O 9,,y 3101; kc!,,, Co eki k^z Phone #: PROJECT: Name: -�p C � :1 p_ Address: I..^&%^ 45r-e— Phone #: o TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD E)9 Conceptual Historic Devt. ❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other: ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) S e0- AA n, vu ao Lu-j PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Sec AA e-,k-ESL 0 fl H e you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ e�R [`Pre -Application Conference Summary [� Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement [� Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ['f Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards • P] Land Use Review Fee Policy C9 i Y OF ASPEN C01.1Ai0 J'rITY DEVELOPMENT The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative — meaning an application with multiple flat fees must pay the sum of those flat fees. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff review is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amounts may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre -application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant's request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final, and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purposes of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and all past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final application submission. Upon final approval all billing shall again be reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 or more days past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.75% per month. An unpaid invoice of 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, an unpaid invoice of 90 or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. January, 2012 City of Aspen 1 130 S. Galena St. 1 (970) 920-5090 a "IrUIVED a, n o nn,q Agreement to Pay Application Fees Anagreement Detween the Uty of Aspen k un ana Property Phone No.: S Owner ("I„): JO.v.)��. �-NowKn f 2 Email: R-0.g Address of Ski Billing S A•r.¢ Property: Address: (subject of > 6 (� 'irkb (send bills here) application) understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Review For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 1 ,890 deposit for 6 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. City of Aspen: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Property Owner.6 1A Name: tag: o-tw-LA v``•„�Z City Use: 1890 Title: Fees'Due: $ Received: $ • • ASPEN JEWISH - (�, � '' ryvt 7%V 0 J 2012 C,,'Y OF ASPEN �Owin;(--,'TY DEVELOPNEAfi COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION FOR AMENDMENT TO PHASE it APPROVALS SUBMITTED BY ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES P.O. BOX 3613 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 920-1125 MAY, 2012 CJ TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Application Request ............................................ 1 II. Summary of Prior Approvals ...................................... 2 III. Conformance With Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines .............................................. 5 IV. Conformance With Historic Preservation Design Guidelines ........... 8 V. Special Review To Establish Parking Requirements ................. 10 VI. Conclusion ................................................... 11 EXHIBITS #1. General Warranty Deeds #2. Letter Authorizing Submission of Application #3. Pre -Application Conference Summary #4. City Council Ordinance 36, Series of 2006 #5. HPC Resolution 5, Series of 2007 #6. HPC Resolution 31, Series of 2007 #7. HPC Resolution 40, Series of 2007 #8. City Council Resolution 17, Series of 2010 #9. HPC Resolution 7, Series of 2011 DRAWINGS Vicinity Map Improvement Survey Approved Phase I Site Plan Approved Phase II Site Plan Proposed Site Plan Proposed Floor Plans Proposed Elevations 0 • Application Request This is an application for an amendment to the final development approvals previously granted to the second phase of the Aspen Jewish Community Center (AJCC). The purpose of the amendment is to authorize the development of a parsonage along the east side of the property, clustered along with the historic cabins. The parsonage will provide a place for the Rabbi and his family to live. The parsonage will also host important functions for the congregation. For example, the Rabbi will hold communal dinners with the congregation at the parsonage following Friday night services. Social activities for scholars, speakers and other guests of the congregation will also occur at the parsonage. The property on which the development is proposed to occur is Lots A through I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen (more commonly known as 435 West Main Street). It is approximately 26,981 sq. ft. in size and is zoned Mixed Use (MU). A vicinity map locating this property within the City of Aspen has been provided. The subject property is owned by The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen ("the applicant"). Proof of the ownership of the property is provided by Exhibit #1, the general warranty deeds. A letter from Rabbi Mendel Mintz of the Jewish Resource Center authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services and Arthur Chabon Architects to submit this application is attached as Exhibit #2. An improvement survey, depicting existing conditions on the property as of early 2012 has also been provided. At the time of submission of this application the property was improved with a small lodge comprised of 18 cabins, known as L'Auberge. There was also a building located on the Fourth Street side of the property that was formerly occupied as a residence. This building has been used by the applicant for the last several years for Jewish studies and religious services. However, by the summer of 2012 it is anticipated that re -development of the property will have begun. The residence and most of the cabins will be removed from the property and construction will be initiated on Phase I of the Jewish Community Center. The applicant held several pre -application meetings with staff prior to the submission of this application. A pre -application conference summary was issued by the staff (see Exhibit #3, Pre -Application Conference Summary). This document indicates that the proposal is considered to be a major development requiring conceptual and final review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section 26.415.070 D of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. HPC will also consider a special review to establish the parking requirements for the parsonage. Following conceptual review but prior to final review, the application will also be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council. That review will address the Growth Management and Subdivision elements of the project. The applicant will submit a supplementary application addressing these land use review procedures once HPC has granted conceptual approval to the project. Aspen Jewish Community Center - Application for Phase 11 Amendment Page 1 FRII • 0 M This application has been organized to respond to the Commercial, Lodging and Historic • District Design Guidelines (focusing on the guidelines for new buildings on Historic Landmark Properties) and the Main Street Historic District guidelines. Responses are also provided to the special review standards for parking. First, however, a summary of the prior approvals granted to this property is presented to establish the context for this • application. II. Summary of Prior Approvals The applicant spent eighteen months working with the HPC on the original conceptual • designs for this property. Formal public hearings or scheduled work sessions were held with the HPC in February, July, and October of 2004, and January, February, April, June, and August of 2005, at which time conceptual approval for a new Jewish Community Center project was granted pursuant to HPC Resolution 31, Series of 2005. Following completion of the HPC conceptual review process the applicant submitted a land use application for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. • That application requested designation of the property as an historic landmark; growth . management review for an essential public facility and for affordable housing; special review to establish the parking requirements; and subdivision review. The P&Z recommended that City Council approve the project pursuant to Resolution No. 24, Series S of 2006, approved on July 18, 2006. City Council then approved the project pursuant to . Ordinance 36, Series of 2006, adopted on September 25, 2006 (see Exhibit #4). The applicant then returned to HPC to obtain final approval of a major development. This approval was granted pursuant to HPC Resolution 5, Series of 2007 (see Exhibit #5). HPC later granted a side yard setback variance to the project pursuant to Resolution 31, Series of 2007 (see Exhibit #6). Finally, HPC granted approval to an amendment of the final approval pursuant to Resolution 40, Series of 2007 (see Exhibit #7). This amendment provided detailed responses to many of the conditions established in . Resolution 5 of 2006. The approved project design includes an eastern wing and a western wing, connected by r a central lobby and courtyard. The western wing, along Fourth Street, was approved to contain a religious sanctuary, a pre-school with an outdoor play space, administrative • offices, religious classrooms and a library. The eastern wing, along Third Street, was primarily to be used as a social hall. The approved project also had six of the nine remaining original cabins remaining in place. . Three cabins along Third Street would be used as affordable housing, while three cabins along the alley would be used as guest lodging. The other three original cabins were approved to be relocated off -site, to a location that was left to be determined. . The project that was originally approved by City Council was for a building that was approximately 19,655 sq. ft. in size. The amended project was approximately 2,345 square feet smaller, at a size of approximately 17,310 sq. ft. Aspen Jewish Community Center - Application for Phase 11 Amendment Page 2 0 0 Once the necessary approvals were in place the applicant recorded the subdivision plat and agreement and applied for a building permit for the project. However, by that time the economy was beginning to slow down and descend into the recession. It became apparent that funding for the project would not be available and so the applicant withdrew the building permit application. More recently, the applicant applied for an extension of the vested rights for the project. City Council extended the vested rights to March 1, 2013 pursuant to Resolution 17, Series of 2010 (see Exhibit #8) providing the applicant with additional time to initiate project construction. Then, in September, 2011 the applicant received approval from HPC to amend the project approvals to establish a two phase development plan for the project. That approval further reduced the project's floor area to 17,100 sq. ft. Approval was granted pursuant to HPC Resolution 7, Series of 2011 (se Exhibit #9). The approved Phase I involves the re -development of the site with a new building located along the Main Street/Fourth Street side of the property that will house a sanctuary/social hall, pre-school, religious school classrooms, and the administration area. Phase I also focuses on the restoration of the six historic cabins along Third Street and the alley, for use as affordable housing for employees of the AJCC, guest lodging and support functions. A site plan showing the approved Phase I is included in this application booklet. The approximate floor area to be developed in Phase I is 10,550 sq. ft. in the new building plus 1,975 sq. ft. for the 6 cabins, for a total of 12,525 sq. ft. Phase II of the project was approved to complete the development of the AJCC with a building on the Third Street side of the property, linked to the Phase I building by a loggia. The floor area of this building was limited to 4,575 sq. ft. (with the total Phase I and Phase II being 17,100 sq. ft.). As explained above, the original plan for the Phase II building was that it would be the social hall for the congregation. However, when the approvals were granted for the phased project, the applicant suggested that it would make more sense for the congregation to use the new building for several years and see how the demands for facilities evolve over time before settling on the uses for the additional space in Phase II. For example, it might turn out that there is a greater need for pre-school classrooms than for the social hall, which would result in a different type of addition than was originally anticipated. So the Phase II site plan, which is depicted on a drawing included in this application pattern, could be considered to be a "place holder' until the applicant determined the long term needs of the congregation over time. Unexpectedly, a new concept for Phase II has emerged just as Phase I construction gets underway. The Jewish Resource Center has determined that it is essential to provide a space for the Rabbi and his family to live on the property and for the Rabbi to be able to host important social functions of the congregation in his parsonage. The site plan, floor plans and elevations for the parsonage have been prepared and are included in this application booklet. The plans show a relatively modest two story building, located along Aspen Jewish Community Center - Application for Phase II Amendment Page 3 0 0 the east side of the property near the historic cabins. The parsonage contains a master bedroom and four bedrooms for the children. It also contains a family living room and a dining room that would be used to host dinners with congregation members and other visitors. The parsonage has been designed to have a floor area in the range of 3,700 to 3,800 sq. ft., which is less than the floor area that was approved for Phase II of the project. The parsonage should be considered to be a replacement for the concept of a second phase social hall building. If in the future there is a need for additional space at the AJCC, it would most likely come in the form of an addition to the main building, such as space for an additional classroom. A separate building would appear to be quite unlikely at this time because of the importance of maintaining an open play area on the site. The applicant is aware that if an addition were planned in the future it would require its own land use application and would have to stand on its own merits. The applicant has had some initial discussions with staff about the City's interest in having the applicant demonstrate how the parsonage will be permanently linked to the AJCC. Following are some of the initial thoughts for the type of commitments that the applicant anticipates formally making within the land use application.. 1. The parsonage will be permanently owned by the Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen and will not be owned by the Rabbi. The residence will never be conveyed as a separate use or separate interest from the Jewish Resource Center. 2. The parsonage will always serve basic functions of the congregation and will be open to members of the congregation. These functions are anticipated to include, but not be limited to, Friday night dinners for the congregation following services, receptions for visiting scholars and speakers, and similar types of social activities. 3. If the City determines it is appropriate and necessary, the applicant is prepared to impose an "RO Housing" designation on the parsonage. The conformance of the proposed parsonage with the applicable design guidelines is addressed in the following sections of this application. Aspen Jewish Community Center - Application for Phase 11 Amendment Page 4 0 0 III. Conformance With Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines 7.1 Preserve the historic district's street plan. Response: No changes are proposed to the street grid for Main Street, Third Street, or the alley. 7.2 Maintain the traditional character and function of an alley where it exists. Response: No changes to the character or function of the alley will result from this amendment. The applicant anticipates that cars will access the parsonage from the alley. A one car garage will be attached to the rear of the structure and access will occur between two of the cabins that are being preserved along the alley. T 3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the street. Visual impacts shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways: ♦ Parking shall be placed underground or in a structure wherever possible. ♦ Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the property, behind the structure. ♦ Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and landscaped to soften parking areas. Response: Parking will be provided in a one car garage attached to the rear of the proposed parsonage. As part of this conceptual review, HPC will establish the parking required for this use by special review. The applicant has determined that one space will meet the family's needs since the Rabbi will be living and working on this site and since there are already nine (9) spaces being provided for the Jewish Community Center pursuant to the prior land use approvals it received. Responses to the special review standards are provided in Section V. of this application booklet. 7.4 Underground parking access shall not have a negative impact on the character of the street. Response: Underground parking access is not proposed for this property. 7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns. Response: The proposed parsonage has been sited to respect historic settlement patterns. The building will be oriented toward Main Street and will be parallel to Third Street, with a covered front porch that faces directly toward Main Street. The front porch Aspen Jewish Community Center - Application for Phase II Amendment Page 5 0 0 will be built right up to the 5' front yard setback in a manner similar to the Jewish Community Center and traditional buildings along Main Street. and Fifth Street. This will create a vibrant interaction between the parsonage and the street. The building has been purposefully sited relatively close to the cabins that line the site along Third Street. This will establish a residential cluster along this side of the property and will also maintain a large open area between the parsonage and the Jewish Community Center. This open area will be used as the play area for the children who are attending the pre-school and the religious school in the main building. 7.6 Where a sidewalk exists, maintain its historic material and position. Response: The materials and position of the sidewalk that has been previously approved for construction along Main Street will be maintained. 7.7 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street. Response: No new curb cuts are proposed along Main Street. 7.8 Provide a walk to the primary building entry, perpendicular from the public sidewalk. Response: There will be two walkways that will lead from the public sidewalk to the front porch, one from Main Street and one from Third Street 7.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. Response: The parsonage has been oriented parallel to the lot lines so as to maintain the traditional grid pattern of this block. Its primary entrance faces and is visible from Main Street. The building will have a single level covered porch that is of a scale that is appropriate to a residence. 7.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block historically during the mining era. Response: The applicant proposes a 5' front yard setback for the parsonage, which is typical of the setbacks seen along Main Street historically. 7.11 Locate a new secondary structure in a manner that is similar to those seen historically in the district. Response: There is not a secondary structure proposed for the parsonage. 7.12 A new structure should step down in scale where it abuts a single story historic structure. Aspen Jewish Community Center - Application for Phase II Amendment Page 6 Response: The elevations show the one story covered porch that is quite similar in scale to the small historic cabins located next to the building, along Third Street. 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those traditionally in the district during the mining era. Response: This portion of Main Street contains some of the larger historic residences in the Main Street Historic District. Nevertheless, the proposed building contains just two stories and will be less than 28' in height to the 1/3 point of the roof. This is less than the 32' height approved for the Jewish Community Center building and is also slightly lower than the height of the historic structure that sits across Third Street from this building. While this structure is somewhat taller than the social hall that was previously approved for this portion of the site, it takes up significantly less area on the block than the prior use. This will leave more open space for use by children on the site. It will also give the parsonage a scale that better reflects the historic residential character of this portion of Main Street, particularly by creating a compatible, symbiotic relationship with the historic structure just across Third Street that is depicted on the elevations. 7.15 On larger structures, subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. Response: The mass of the parsonage has been subdivided into smaller modules by designing the structure into two components — one that is on a north/south axis and one that is on an east/west axis. The component that is oriented east and west is set back from the front of the building by more than 25', giving it a subordinate feel and allowing the mass that faces Main Street to be in scale with the small cabins located along Third Street. Aspen Jewish Community Center - Application for Phase II Amendment Page 7 0 IV. Conformance With Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. Response: The entrance is oriented to Main Street. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. Response: The front porch entrance has been clearly defined. 11.3 Construct anew building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. Response: It is not possible to build a residence for a family that is of the same scale as the small guest cabins on this site. However, the elevations show that the parsonage will have a one story covered porch that steps down to the scale of the cabins. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. Response: The mass of the parsonage has been designed as two components — one that is on a north/south axis and one that is on an east/west axis. The component that is oriented east and west is set back from the front of the building by more than 25', giving it a subordinate feel. This ensures that the mass of the structure that faces Main Street will be in scale with the historic cabins. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. Response: The elevations shows how the roof and dormer forms and the height of the porch emulate the form and scale of the historic cabins. The overall mass and height of the structure has been designed to be similar to the historic residence that is located across Third Street. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. Response: The applicant anticipates that the roof will be made of synthetic shake shingles that are treated to be fire retardant. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a sense of human scale. Aspen Jewish Community Center - Application for Phase II Amendment Page 8 • Response: The parsonage will be made primarily of wood materials. As labeled on the north elevation, the materials will include wood board and batten siding, wood lap siding, wood timber columns and beams, clad wood doors and windows. There will also been a stone veneer chimney. The building will have a street facing porch and street facing windows that are of human scale. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. Response: While the parsonage uses forms and materials that are reminiscent of the historic resources of Main Street it represents a contemporary design that does not imitate Victorian -era architecture. Aspen Jewish Community Center - Application for Phase If Amendment Page 9 • 0 V. Special Review to Establish Parking Requirements According to Section 26.515.030 of the Land Use Code, there is no specified standard for parking for civic, cultural and public uses. Instead, the required number of parking spaces for this type of use is established by Special Review. The applicant hereby requests that HPC establish the parking standard for the parsonage as one space, to be provided in the on -site attached garage. Following are the applicant's responses to the special review criteria of Section 26.515.040, which provide the rationale for why the parking standard for the parsonage should be one space. 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts onto the on -street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Response: The parking standard for the Jewish Community Center was previously established based on a parking study prepared for the applicant by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, a well respected transportation engineering firm based in the Denver area. This study took into account the factors listed in this standard and represents a comprehensive analysis of the parking needs for that project. Section 10 of Ordinance 36, Series of 2006 required nine spaces to be provided for the main building, including 2 spaces for affordable housing users and a pick up/drop off area for the pre-school. These spaces are shown on the site plan. The applicant had always anticipated that one of the nine spaces on -site would be reserved for the Rabbi. Now that the Rabbi will be living on -site, that space will be freed up for other users of the building. Since the Rabbi will be living and working on the same property there is no need for a second space to be provided for the parsonage as might be required for a typical residential unit. If there is an activity going on at the parsonage that might generate additional parking demand (such as a dinner that is attended by congregation members) those visitors can walk/bike to the site, take a bus, or they can park in the on -site spaces that have been located along the alley. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Response: The Code does not establish a parking standard for this use. The purpose of this special review is to establish, not to vary the parking standard for this use. Aspen Jewish Community Center - Application for Phase II Amendment Page 10 r� 0 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Response: Please see the response to review standard #1, above. VI. Conclusion We believe the above responses and the attached exhibits and figures provide the information you require to process this application and demonstrate that the application complies with the applicable provisions of the Aspen Land Use Code. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there is anything else you need. Aspen Jewish Community Center - Application for Phase 11 Amendment Page 11 • • EXHIBITS ASPEN (� CITY OF ASPEN APT FROM HR sx T Fx°t',,t W DATE REP N EXHIBIT # 1 . REP,,, Ek$NO '63 `f J(blp4 �" y$6S Recording requested by: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen When recorded, mail to: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen c/o Menachem Mintz 104 Robinson Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 GENERAL WARRANTY DEED ALH HOLDING COMPANY- GUNNISON ("Grantor"), with an address of 435 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, for Ten Dollars and no/100 ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby bargains, sells and conveys to THE JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF ASPEN, whose address is c/o Menachem Mintz, 104 Robinson Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611, the real property situated in Pitkin County, Colorado. described as follows: CABIN UNITS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 AND 29, L'AUBERGE D'ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Plat thereof recorded March 21,2000 in Plat Book 52 at Page 81 and as defined and described in the Amended and Restated Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for L'Auberge D'Aspen 1 recorded June 15, 2001 as Reception No. 455538 L J together with all its appurtenances and WARRANTS the title against J� all persons, subject to those items set forth on Exhibit A attached �. hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Dated: April 2004 GRANTOR: �. ALH HOLDI G COMPANY- ISON, a Col d c pora By: Michael D. is ield, as attorney in fact for STATE OF I a�� c•"� D ) ��� ss. COUNTY OFPAkJ�._ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me April .1y, 2004 by Michael D. Haisfield, as attorney in fact for Aud e* T Haiafield, f ALH Holding Cgpany-Gunnison, a Colorado corporation. My commission expires 6 7 Witness my hand and official sea . ,2 Notary Public 2805\2GWD.02 J�'0-1 496576 0Page; I of 2 4/16/2004 11:34 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY COR 11.00 D 508.36 My C=gubn E1q ku 1W}6� Page 1 of 2 496576 TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 04/16/2004 EXHIBIT A TO GENERAL WARRANTY DEED Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Pages 273, 316, 530 and Page 536 and In Book 79 at Page 61, providing as follows- 'That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or tb any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws' Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of Perkins Subdivision recorded August 14, 1980 in Plat Book 10 at Page 25 and Condominium Plat of L'Auberge D' Aspen recorded March 21, 2000 in Plat Book 52 at Page 81. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Statement of Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision for Perkins Subdivision as set forth in instrument recorded July 11, 1980 in Book 391 at Page 574 Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Subdivision Agreement as set forth in instrument recorded August 14, 1980 in Book 393 at Page 49 Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners recorded June 10, 1996 as Reception No. 393526 as Resolution No 95-50 Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1995 by Aspen City Council recorded July 24, 1995 in Book 788 at Page 43. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for L'Auberge D' Aspen recorded June 15, 2001 as Reception No. 455538. deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, Ilmitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin 496576 Page: 2 of 2 04/16/2004 11:34N SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00 D 506.36 V C&OL OF ASPEN CITY OF qg� M( T!' FROM WRSEXEMPT FROM ASPEN DATE REPco NO.y',4S DATE REPS NO. y��s Recordd -11 ing requested by: 4 /`y The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen When recorded, mail to: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen c/o Menachem Mintz 104 Robinson Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 GENERAL WARRANTY DEED AUDREY LEA HAISFIELD ("Grantor"), with an address of 3204 Midway Pike, Versailles, KY, for Ten Dollars and no/100 ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby bargains, sells and conveys to THE JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF ASPEN, whose address is c/o Menachem Mintz, 104 Robinson Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611, the real property situated in Pitkin County, Colorado described as follows: HOUSE UNIT A, L'AUBERGE D'ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Plat thereof recorded March 21,2000 in Plat Book 52 at Page 81 and as defined and described in the Amended and Restated Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for L'Auberge D'Aspen recorded June 15, 2001 as Reception No. 455538 together with all its appurtenances and WARRANTS the title against all persons, subject to those items set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Dated: April ±, 2004 G Michael D. aiafield, as attorney in fact for Audrey Lea Haisfield STATE OF O Io ✓uc-Co ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me April 1'� 2004 by Michael D. Haisfield, as attorney in fact for Audrey Lea Haisfield. My commission expires I I 0 Witness my hand and official se Notary Public 2805\2GWD.02 jI V� 496577 TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 04/16/2004 Page 1 of 2 IIIII IIIII IIIIII IIII IIII IIIIII (IIIIII III it II III IIII Page: I04/16/2496577 04 11: 35A SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00 0 123.57 EXHIBIT A TO GENERAL WARRANTY DEED Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Pages 273, 316, 530 and Page 536 and In Book 79 at Page 61, providing as follows- 'That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or tb any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws" Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of Perkins Subdivision recorded August 14, 1980 in Plat Book 10 at Page 25 and Condominium Plat of L'Auberge D' Aspen recorded March 21, 2000 in Plat Book 52 at Page 81. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Statement of Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision for Perkins Subdivision as set forth in Instrument recorded July 11, 1980 in Book 391 at Page 574 Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Subdivision Agreement as set forth in instrument recorded August 14, 1980 in Book 393 at Page 49 Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners recorded June 10, 1996 as Reception No. 393526 as Resolution No 95-50 Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1995 by Aspen City Council recorded July 24, 1995 in Book 788 at Page 43. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth In the Condominium Declaration for L'Auberge D' Aspen recorded June 15, 2001 as Reception No. 455538, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin 496577 049/16/2004 11:35A SILVI A pgVIS PITKR 11.00 D 123.67 IN COUNTY GO EXHIBIT #2 Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PARSONAGE AT ASPEN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER Dear Amy and Sara, The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen is the owner of the Aspen Jewish Community Center located at 435 West Main Street. I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services and Arthur Chabon Architects to submit an application to build a parsonage on the property. Mr. Richman and Mr. Chabon are authorized to submit this application on our behalf and to representing us in meetings with staff and the applicable decision -making bodies. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application please do so by calling Mr. Richman at the phone number he has provided in the application. Sincerely, Rabbi Mendel Mi-ntz 435 West Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 544-3770 • EXHIBIT # 3 • � M • CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Adams, (970) 429-2778 DATE: 04.09.12 PROJECT: 435 E. Main Street • REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman Planning Service, 970-920-1125 OWNER: Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen DESCRIPTION: Aspen Jewish Community Center received final approvals in 2006/2007, including: • P&Z Resolution #24, Series of 2006; Council Ordinance #36, Series of 2006; HPC Resolution 19, Series of 2006 for Conceptual Approval; HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2007, for Final Approval; HPC Resolution #31, Series of 2007 for a Setback Variance, HPC Resolution, #40, Series of 2007 for an • amendment to Final Approval; and HPC Resolution #7, Series of 2011 for a substantial amendment to Final Approval. Council approved an extension of vested rights via Resolution #17, Series of 2007 allowing the project to remain protected from changes in the Land Use Code until March 1, 2013. A subdivision plat and agreement were recorded in November of 2007. The applicant is interested in amending the approvals to change the social hall to a parsonage for the • Rabbi to receive members of the congregation, to conduct Friday night dinners for large groups in a communal dining hall, and other events associated with the Jewish Community Center mission. In addition the Rabbi shall live in the parsonage with his family. The new building is proposed to have a • basement and two levels above grade. The purpose of the parsonage to contribute to the fulfillment of the mission of the Jewish Community Center deems the building as part of the "arts, cultural and civic" i use and as such the building counts toward the 0.75.1 FAR allowed for the use in the Mixed Use Zone District. The applicant shall propose conditions to be incorporated into the Subdivision Improvements • Agreement that permanently attach the parsonage to the Jewish Community Center and disallow any future use of the parsonage as a single family home. The proposed parsonage requires Major Development design review by the Historic Preservation • Commission for development of a historic landmark and for development within the Main Street Historic District. The applicant shall apply the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives (Main Street Historic District Chapter) and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (pay close attention to Chapter 11 — New Buildings on Landmarked Properties). The Commercial Design • Standards and the Residential Design Standards do not apply to this project. • Special Review to establish parking requirements for the parsonage is required and is conducted by the Historic Preservation Commission. This shall amend the parking requirements approved via Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #24, Series of 2006 and City Council Ordinance #36, Series of • 2006. A substantial amendment to Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility is required. The allotments granted in 2006 remain valid. There is no annual limit on allotments for Essential Public • Facilities. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines employee generation for the project and City Council determines the mitigation rate for the employees generated. City Council determines the mitigation rate for the generated employees. The original 2006 approvals granted a mitigation rate of 44% for 9.63 employees generated by the development which required 4.25 employees to be housed • onsite. The application needs to address any changes to employee generation resulting from removing the social hall and adding a parsonage. 1 An "Other Amendment" to the Subdivision approval by the City Council is required. Only the subdivision improvements agreement needs to be amended since the subdivision plat is not affected by the proposed changes. Recently, City Council adopted a Code Amendment that requires neighborhood outreach prior to the first public hearing. A summary of the outreach shall be presented at the first HPC public hearing. For a complete description of this new requirement see Ordinance #3, Series of 2012 pages 4 — 6: http://www aspenpitkin com/Departments/Community-DevelopmentIPlanning-and-Zoning/Recent- Code-Amendments/ Please note that Ordinance #3, Series of 2012 (a link is above) also changes the requirement that a project comply with the Aspen Area Community Plan. In addition, "call-up" procedures by City Council are de novo. This application is subject to Ordinance #3 which went into effect on March 27, 2012. The review schedule is as follows: Step 1: HPC for Major Development Conceptual review, Special Review for Parking. Step 2: P&Z to review Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility. Step 3: City Council to review Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility and Subdivision amendment. Step 4: HPC for Major Development Final review. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.070.D Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development 26.430 Special Review 26.470.090.4 Growth Management Review for Essential Public Facilities 26.480.080.B Subdivision - other amendment 26.515.040 Parking - Special Review Standards 26.610 Impact Fees 26.620 School Land Dedication 26.710.180 Mixed Use (MU) Zone District Land Use Code (including all code sections cited above): http://www aspenpitkin com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ HPC Design Guidelines: http://www aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Historic- Preservation/Historic-Properties/ HPC application and regular land use application: http://www aspenpitkin com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Applications-and-Fees/ Review by: Staff for completeness, HPC, P&Z and CC. Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC, P&Z and CC. Referral Agencies: Housing ($945), Engineering ($265 per hour). 0 0 Planning Fees: For HPC application: $1,890 for 6 billable hours (additional hourly rate billed at $315 per hour). For GMQS/Subdivision application: $4,410 for 14 billable hours (additional hourly rate billed at $315 per hour). Referral Agency Fees: $1,210 "payable with land use application for Subdivision and GMQS. Total Deposit: For HPC application: $1,890. For GMQS/Subdivision application: $5,620. Please submit (along with specific requirements listed in the process for each type of land use review). - El Proof of ownership with payment. ❑ Signed fee agreement. ❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. ❑ Total deposit for review of the application. ❑ 10 Copies of the complete application packet and maps for HPC review. ❑ An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ❑ Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) ❑ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. ❑ List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing ❑ Copies of prior approvals. ❑ Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses these building -related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920-5090 for additional information. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. EXHIBIT #4 ORDINANCE NO. 36 • (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SUBDIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AS AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY AND HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, FOR THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER, ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, • PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. • Parcel ID: 2735-124-81-001 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, • represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, submitted an application (hereinafter "the application") requesting approval of Growth Management Review as an Essential i Public Facility and Subdivision Review to construct the Jewish Community Center, • located at 435 W. Main St., Lots A -I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory • of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if HPC and City Council determine sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Director determined that • the Jewish Community Center is an Essential Public Facility, and that the application met the applicable review standards, and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 20, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing to July 11, 2006; and, • WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on July 11, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing until July 18, 2006; and • WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on July 18, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 24, Series of 2006, by a five to one (5- 1) vote, approving with conditions, a Growth Management Review to determine • employee generation, and Special Review to establish off-street parking requirements; and recommended approval to City Council of a Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility, and Subdivision review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has • reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, 1 r a • WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 2006, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposal and approved Ordinance No. 36, Series of 2006, by a 5-0 vote, approving with conditions the Jewish Community Center Subdivision, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility and Historic Landmark Designation; located at 435 West Main Street, Lots A -I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves with conditions, a Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility and Subdivision in order to construct the Jewish Community Center, located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A -I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen. Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of City Council approval. Section 3: Buildine Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance, Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution and Historic Preservation Commission Resolutions. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5- year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 2 f� e. An excavation -stabilization plan, construction management plan, and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify.that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet the building code requirements. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the site is limited to the dimensional requirements established in the Site Plan, Floor Plans, Building Sections and Exterior Elevations in the February 2006 Subdivision application, and further subject to Historic Preservation Commission Final Review. Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof. Section 6: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks shall be constructed as per Resolution No. 31, Series of 2005, of the Historic Preservation Commission, and shall be upgraded to meet City Engineer's requirements and ADA requirements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any of the units within the development. The Applicant shall also repair any curb and gutter adjacent to the property that is deemed to be in disrepair by the City Engineer before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any of the units within the development. Section 7: Affordable Housing The three (3) on -site affordable housing units shall be in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Employee Housing Guidelines. The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the affordable housing units at the time of recordation of the subdivision plat and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the units, classifying the units as Category 2 units. a) At least two parking spaces shall be allocated and reserved for the employee -housing units on site. b)The units will be deed -restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance for a period of one year or more. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. 3 c) APCI IA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the units such that 1/10`" of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. d)Due to the ability to have the employees live on -site, if such employee is employed by the Community Center, the income and assets can be waived. e) The applicant shall conduct an employee audit two years after issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the development under the following terms: 1. The applicant shall retain an auditor and shall gain prior approval from the Housing Office for the selection of the auditor. 2. The applicant shall be fully responsible for all fees associated with retaining an auditor. 3. Should the audit show additional employees over the 9.63 FTE, the applicant shall mitigate at an identical rate established by this Ordinance (44 percent) for those additional employees required under the Guidelines in effect at the time of the audit — either by providing units or by providing a payment -in -lieu fee. Section 8: Relocation of Cabins Applicant may relocate three (3) cabins off -site only upon approval of the Historic Preservation Commission of a satisfactory receiver site and method of relocation. Section 9: Determination of Employee Generation The Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that 9.63 FTEs shall be generated by the Jewish Community Center, based upon a review by the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority. The three Category 2 rental affordable housing units on site provide mitigation for 4.25 FTEs. Section 10: Establishine Off -Street Parkin$ Requirements The Planning and Zoning Commission has established off-street parking requirements as follows: a) Nine (9) off-street parking spaces. b)Of the nine (9) off-street parking spaces, two (2) shall be reserved for affordable housing users. c) The Center shall utilize at least one staff member to establish and facilitate a temporary off-street drop-off and pick-up area for the Pre -School operation, using up to seven (7) parking spaces in the off-street parking area. The Center shall use these parking spaces and safety cones to create a one-way, continuous -movement drop-off program, and not as traditional parking spaces. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining this area in a manner that provides for public safety in the winter months, including snow and ice removal. d)Applicant shall submit a request to the City of Aspen to post the alley adjacent to the on -site parking area as one-way. The proposed direction of the one-way 4 designation shall be decided in cooperation with the City and the neighbors on the • alley. Section 11: Transportation and Parking . a) Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen's Air Quality Impact Fee if said fee is in • place by building permit submittal. Fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit. b)Applicant shall print on all event flyers that on -site parking is not available, and • attendees are strongly encouraged to car pool, use bicycles, walk or take the bus. c) Applicant shall require any person who rents the social hall to print on their invitation that on -site parking is not available and attendees are strongly encouraged to car pool, use bicycles, walk or take the bus. • d) Applicant shall maintain information on its website regarding the lack of on -site parking, and information regarding car-pooling or use of public transit. e) Applicant's daycare operation shall make a good faith effort to work with parents . of enrolled children to establish and maintain a carpool program. • f) Applicant shall actively participate in the City's Transportation Options Program (TOP). g) Applicant shall provide covered and secure bike storage. • h)Applicant shall provide free bus passes to employees who do not live on -site. i) Applicant shall cooperate with the City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority regarding the upgrade of the bus stop/shelter adjoining the subject property on Main Street; the upgrade of the bus stop/shelter may be • subject to a City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission review pursuant to Section 26.415. • Section 12: Fire Mitigation • The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal. • Section 13: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water . Department. Section 14: Sanitation District Requirements • The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and • regulations. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service • line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. • Section 15: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 16: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 17: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 18: Landscaping a) Trce Protection_ A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. b)Excavation: an excavation under the drip line permit will need to be approved along with the tree permit. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along Hopkins Ave and part of the South West comer located next to the Large Cottonwood Tree. Vertical excavation will be required and over digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. c) The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 2 inches in diameter. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. d)An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. e)Planting in the Public Right of way will be subject to Landscaping in the ROW requirements. Improvements to the ROW should include new grass and irrigation. The ROW trees along 41h and 3`d streets should be of another species other than cottonwood. 0 0 f) Realignment of the ditch will require specific coordination between the Parks Department and the contractor. The realignment will have to take place during a time period when the ditch is closed for the off-season. Realignment will also require the use of a Bentomat type material in order to reestablish the integrity of the ditch. g)Utility connections: these connections will need to be designed on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones h)Play Yard fence shall be installed on posts, all posts need to be hand dug. Any root greater than 2" encountered during the installation will require approval before removal. Play yard fence must be constructed according to State of Colorado standards for daycare centers. i) The installation of the new sidewalk at the corner of 4`h and Main Streets needs to be designed at grade bridging over the root systems of the existing cottonwood trees. . Section 19: Historic Preservation Commission Approvals Required Final Development Plan approval by the Historic Preservation Commission must be • obtained prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Project. • • Section 20: Historic Landmark Designation Pursuant to Section 26.415.030.B of the Municipal Code, Criteria for listing on the Aspen • Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, the property is hereby designated • on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as the site possesses sufficient • integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and the site is related to designation criteria 26.415.030.B.2.a and 26.415.030.B.2.c. • • Section 21: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site -specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this • approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development • order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the • development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site -specific development plan shall not result in • the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be • published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: • • • 7 • • • Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 435 W. Main Street, Lots A —1, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 22: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 23: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 24: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 25: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 26: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 250' day of September, 2006, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 27• This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28 h day of August, 2006. Attest: 7 Kathryn S. )'K ch, City Clerk Helen Kalin ud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 25th day of September, 2006. Attest: 411 Kathryn S. ch, Ci Clerk Approved as to form: �ote�rCity Attorney 2 0 EXHIBIT #5 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING APPROVAL FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.5, SERIES OF 2007 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur Chabon, architect, and Design Workshop, Inc., has requested Major Development (Final) for the property located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-1, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated January 24, 2007, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 24, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Final) with the following conditions: 1. Final resolution of Relocation should be delayed until a site has been determined. To the extent that a new location site remains unresolved, this will not affect permit review and issuance, although an approved relocation site is ultimately a requirement. 2. The historic cabins are to have wood shingle roofs. 3. Alternative exterior light fixtures for the historic cabins must be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor. 4. The applicant is to study providing more green space around the base of the historic cabins, minimizing hardscape that meets the foundation of these buildings. 5. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the cabins will be stabilized must be submitted with the building permit application. 6. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $15,000 for each cabin must be submitted with the building permit application to insure the safe relocation of the structures. 7. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 8. The original chimneys on the cabins should be carefully documented and reconstructed using the same material. 9. HPC must review and approve stone samples and mock-ups for the new structure. 10. Restudy the fence on Main Street and its wrap around to Fourth based on comments provided at the Final hearing. The design is to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 11. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 12. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 13. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 14. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 15. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 16. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of January, 2007. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk L� EXHIBIT #6 • RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO • RESOLUTION NO. 31, SERIES OF 2007 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-001 • WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Design 0 Workshop, Inc., has requested a west sideyard setback variance for the property located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A -I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and 0 • WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine that Section 26.415.110.13 of 40 the Municipal Code, is met; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 11, 2007, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards were met, and recommended approval; and . WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 11, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission • considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and approved the application by a vote of 4 to 0. 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 0 That HPC hereby approves a setback variance within the required west sideyard of 435 W. Main Street as represented in the application reviewed on July 11, 2007. • APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the I1th day of July, 2007. App ve s to Form• • David Hoefer, Assistailt City Attorney Approved as to nten HI C SE A ON C SION i Jeffrey Halferty, i AWE • athy Strk4daiid,Chief Deputy Clerk RECEPTION#: 540887, 08/10/2007 at 09:55:01 AM, 1 of 1. R $6.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO • EXHIBIT #7 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING APPROVAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.40, SERIES OF 2007 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur Chabon, has requested an amendment to the Major Development (Final) approval granted for the property located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A -I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, for approval of an amendment, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine that Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, is met; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated November 14, 2007, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards were met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on November 14, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and approved the application by a vote of 4 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves an amendment to the Major Development (Final) approval for 435 W. Main Street as represented with the following conditions: 1. The stone sample and mock-up provided, which is described as "Comanche", from Pueblo, Colorado, is approved for the new structure. 2. The use of cement board siding for the new structure is approved. 3. The east patio front wall will be aligned with the north wall of the meeting hall. Plantings will be placed in front of the east patio wall. 4. An updated landscape plan must be approved by staff and monitor. 5. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 6. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 7. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 0 0 8. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 9. All conditions of Major Development Final approval (see HPC Resolution # 5, Series of 2007) not inconsistent with those conditions set forth herein shall remain in full force and effect. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of November, 2007. Approved as to Form: .Jim True, Special Counsel Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk EXHIBIT #8 • RESOLUTION NO. 17 (Series of 2010) S A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN • EXTENSION OF THE VESTED RIGHTS ESTABLISHED BY HPC RESOLUTION #5, SERIES OF 2007, FOR THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN • COUNTY, COLORADO • WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, requesting approval of a three-year extension of the vested rights • granted for the Jewish Community Center through HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2007; • and, WHEREAS, HPC adopted Resolution #5, Series of 2007, which approved worship space, library, office and community areas, affordable housing, and a preschool until February 25, 2010; and • WHEREAS, the subject property is described as 435 W. Main Street, lots A-1, • Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.308.010 Vested Property Rights of the Land Use Code, City Council may adopt a resolution granting an extension of vested rights • after a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application i and has recommended approval of the extension of vested rights for the Jewish • Community Center; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the requested extension of vested rights for the Jewish Community Center under the applicable • provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the extension of vested rights proposal meets or exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of vested rights proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, S COLORADO, THAT: • City Council Resolution No. 17, Page Series of 2010. 1 r9 L..J Section 1 The Aspen City Council does hereby extend the statutory vested rights as approved by HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2007 for the Jewish Community Center at 435 W. Main • Street, Lots A -I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado to March 1, 2013, with the following condition: • 1. The statutory vested property right shall not preclude the applications or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees. The developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and impact fees that are in effect at the time of building permit, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. • Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or • documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: • This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such • prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any • reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. • Section 6: A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 22"d day of February, 2010 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. FINALLY, resolved, adopted, passed, and approved by a 5 to 0 vote on this 22"d day of • February, 2010. S r • City Council Resolution No. 17, Series of 2010. Page 2 Approved as to form: orces er, City Attorney Approved as to content: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor City Council Resolution No. 17, Series of 2010. Page 3 EXHIBIT #9 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A-1, BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 7, SERIES OF 2011 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur Chabon Architect and Alan Richman Planning Services, has requested a substantial amendment to Major Development approval granted for the property located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-1, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, for approval of an amendment, the IIPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine that Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, is met; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated September 14, 2011, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards were met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 14, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and approved the application by a vote of 5 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves a substantial amendment to Major Development approval for 435 W. Main Street, as represented in the HPC packet and drawings presented at the HPC meeting and labeled Exhibit I1, with the following conditions: 1. The historic cabins remaining on the site are to have wood shingle roofs. 2. Alternative exterior light fixtures for the historic cabins remaining on the site must be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor. 3. The applicant is to study providing more green space around the base of the historic cabins remaining on the site, minimizing hardscape that meets the foundation of these buildings. 4. The applicant is required to run advertisements in newspapers twice in an effort to find a site within the City of Aspen or outside of the City of Aspen for one or more of the historic cabins that is approved to be moved off site. If that is unsuccessful for any or all of the cabins, the applicant will be required to run two advertisements in newspapers offering the remaining buildings for salvage of materials. If that is unsuccessful, the applicant is permitted to dispose of the remaining cabins as they see tit. This process must be fully completed before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1. RECEPTION#: 583422, 10/11/2011 at 03:36:21 PM, 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO • 5. If any or all of the cabins described in Condition #4 are to be relocated, or if any of the historic cabins remaining on the site are to be temporarily moved during construction, a structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the cabins will be stabilized must be submitted with the building permit application. 6. If any or all of the cabins described in Condition #4 are to be relocated, or if any of the historic cabins remaining on the site are to be temporarily moved during construction, a bond or letter of credit in the amount of $15,000 for each cabin must be submitted with the building permit application to insure the safe relocation of the structures. 7. If any or all of the historic cabins remaining on the site are to be temporarily moved during construction, a relocation plan detailing how and where they will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 8. The original chimneys on the historic cabins remaining on the site should be carefully documented and reconstructed using the same material. 9. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 10. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 11. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 12. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 13. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 14. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 15. The stone sample and mock-up provided, which is described as "Comanche", from Pueblo, Colorado, is approved for the new structure. 16. The use of cement board siding for the new structure is approved. 17. The fenestration on the connector element in the Phase 2 construction must be restudied for review and approval by staff and monitor before submitting a building permit for Phase 2. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of September, 2011. Approved as to Form: im True, Special Counsel Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION _j Ann Mullins, Vice Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk • C DRAWINGS 0 • 04 00 Ab 00 00 Ob ft lb lb a • �2 North Aspen Jewish Community Center 04.037 6/21/04 Figure 1 Vicinity Map l TREET r- -- ---- --------­-- -- ------ ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- - l ------ --� -'-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --'- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- I ;ifJCL ,� El,. - i - I I I , u-7 I I I I f I I I I I L--- - -- -- ---- ---- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----- -- -- -- -- -- ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT I I I I = -- ' Ir I ki I I ;LLEY BLOCK 38 A s p e n J e w i s h C 0 m m u n I t y C e n t e r 4 3 5 W. M a i n S t r e e t, A s p e n C 0 E x i s t i n g S i t e S u r v e y S c a I e 3/32"=1' 0" 3 / 2 \ N August 17, 2011 R- • Is — ---—`------— ------- ---------------- -------- ♦lWYIT II EM0�1/1�� ___________________________________________________________________________ ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT ALLEY BLOCK 38 Aspen Jewish Community Center 4 3 5 W. Main Street, Aspen CO ________________________________________________________________________ — — — a.opoaw Floor vw rX •W.— Flaw %- Approved & Proposed August 17, 2011 P h a s e 1 S c a I e 3/32' =1'-0' ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT MAIN STREET ALLEY BLOCK 38 Aspen Jewish Community Center 4 3 5 W. Main Street, Aspen CO ---------- --------------------------------- --- I N Ap powC Flow pLn Ap wovW Flow Plan A p p r o v e d & P r o p o s e d August 17, 2011 P h a s e 2 S c a l e 3/32' =1'-O' ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT j' 4'ro� W 117, 1 l 1 17,--- L -- ALLEY BLOCK 38 ,ROPi-R7- -,\E 5 SET SAGK AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado SLI �* N WI O' I ,a I i 1 - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S i t e p l a n S c a I e 3/32"=Y-0" A tt, E- W 0 c- q May 1, 2012 0 Gross area = 2.439.5 SY Covered space = 355 S.F Garage = 278 S.F Total Area = 1.805.5 S.F 0 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage F i r s t F I o o r p l a n May 1, 2012 Aspen , Colorado Scale 1/4'=1'•0" ] 9 - F� Total Floor area = 1,925.6 SF It 40 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage S e c o n d F I o o r p l a n May 1, 2012 Aspen , Colorado Scale 1/4"=1'-0" = 9 - LOT LINE 7 5CT eAOK LINE ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT ------------ Ir 25-C' I+Aj I a A.1O✓WA ! / Roof -M6"- �r PO NT 9[TYY[_. ------ EA� DINT � ANG R O6E G0.XN A`17 BEAw AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado N o r t h E l e v a t i o n Scale 1 /8" = 1'-0" 'RAT•LER' STONE VENEER PRO"" 5ET-LER STONE OF EL _EML .,O May 1, 2012 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT 3 West Main Street Irvington NY 10533 212 216 9268 Tel 914 478 1597 Fax AJCC Parsonage North Elevation Aspen CO May 1, 2012 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT 3 West Main Street Irvington NY 10533 212 216 9268 Tel 914 478 1597 Fax AJCC Parsonage North Elevation Aspen CO May 1, 2012